Download Sociological Theories A Sociological theory is a

Sociological Theories
A Sociological theory is a way to explain how and why certain things (variables) are related. Theories are
like a skeleton or framework on which to hang and organize other insights about human behavior. We
need theories, but we won’t dwell on them too much in this introductory course.
A paradigm is a collection of similar or related theories. Theories can be dry and obtuse but I will try to
boil them down into simple language. Suffice to say: sociological theories help explain why people do
the things they do, or why groups of people behave the way they behave.
Major Theoretical Paradigms
There are three major groupings of theories in Sociology:
1. Structural-functionalism
2. Conflict theory; and
3. Symbolic Interaction
Let’s look at the first paradigm:
Structural-functionalism
Its name sounds ominous but it is really quite simple and intuitive:
Something’s structure is what it is made of – its component parts.
Something’s function is “what it does.” It is something’s purpose.
To illustrate, think of a car. A car’s structure includes wheels, tires, a body frame, transmission, brake
pads, fuel tank, radiator, battery, steering wheel, ball joints, shock absorbers, etc. Those parts make up
the structure of an automobile and are organized in specific ways into “systems” (electrical system, drive
train, braking system, steering system, etc.). Wires and batteries, light bulbs, and circuit breakers all
make up an electrical system within the car.
Function is what something does. The engine and transmission parts make up a system called the drive
train, and its purpose or function is to make the vehicle go. Brake pads, calipers, hydraulic lines, and
brake pedals make up a braking system. Its purpose or function is to make the vehicle stop. The function
of the steering system is to control the car’s direction. Etc.
If you want to understand a car, you need to understand its various structures (parts) and its systems
(how the parts work together) to get something done (function). Sometimes, the best way to
understand something like a car is to take it apart (analysis) and look at all of its components and
systems and then put it back together so you can see how the parts and systems work together to
accomplish a task (meet a need).
Taking something big and complex apart to examine what it is made of and what each part does is called
a “structural-functional analysis.”
In Sociology, we do something similar when we try to understand the complex behavior of human
beings. We examine different societies and cultures, look at the components parts of each one, and try
to assess how the different parts work together to get something done.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theories take a completely different way of looking at human behavior and trying to understand
the motivations of people and why they behave the way they do. It is a framework for building theory
that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and change. Conflict theory is based
on inequalities and the simple fact that some humans have more than others. Karl Marx’s “materialist
conception of history” saw society as driven primarily by economic influences. Conflict theory begins
with the assumption that every human has pretty much the same basic needs (e.g., water, food, air,
shelter, warmth, safety, etc.), but some humans are born better equipped or are in a stronger social
position to get their needs met. That creates conflict because, if everyone needs the same things but
some of us get those things easily and without much effort, it puts strain on others who do not get those
basic needs met in the same way. And when there is not enough to go around or to give everyone
something, things get even more intense and competitive. The ones who have more try to hoard and
hold onto what they have, and try hard not to let others take it away from them. They are called “the
haves” The people who need things to survive but who did not get those things easily are the “havenots” and they must spend a good part of their time and energy trying to work or figure out ways to get
the things they need to survive from “the haves.” Conflict theorists try to explain almost every facet of
human interaction and behavior in those simple terms: the haves try to exploit the underclass and hold
on to what they have, while the have-nots try to get what they need however they can.
Conflict theory is founded in the writings of the Sociologist Karl Marx, and has been amplified and
expounded by many other conflict theorists like C. Wright Mills who came after him. Note that Marx
wasn’t the political revolutionary he is often labeled. Many people fail to distinguish between Marx’s
theoretical writings and the revolutionary activist political movements of communism and socialism.
Marx predicted political revolutions; but it was mostly other people who took Marx’s writings and used
them to justify the overthrow of cruel Czarist regimes and to criticize the hegemony of the ruling class of
the British Empire, which owned more than ¼ of the world at the time.
Symbolic Interaction
Symbolic Interaction is a bit more esoteric than the other
paradigms, but it is not that hard to grasp. It is founded on the
writings of George Herbert Mead, a philosopher at the
University of Chicago. Symbolic Interaction is based on the
notion that humans apply meanings to everything they see
and do in their world. (It is one of the things that separate us
from other animals). Humans (and perhaps a few other higher
mammals like Chimpanzees in a limited way) are the only
animals that rely on using symbols to communicate and to
interact with others to get their needs met.
Humans think in symbols. E.g., the
word “elephant” is a symbol that
represents a large mammal. Once
we learn the term, it becomes a
symbol to us, and humans who
share that language can think of an
elephant in their minds even if
there is no elephant nearby.
Language, e.g., is just a set of symbols. Those symbols- an alphabet - create words that make sentences
that convey meanings a specific group of human beings understand. Every society has its own symbols
and language, each with its own unique meanings and importance. So, to function (get one’s needs met)
in any given group of humans (a society) you first need to understand the meanings that society places
on its symbols. Once you understand the meanings, you can transact business and get your needs met.
Thus, the Symbolic Interaction theorists focus on understanding symbols and the meanings that
different societies and cultures place on those symbols, as a way to understand how and why people
behave. Symbolic Interaction, for example, might help us understand how students interact with others
in their everyday lives on campus.
Sociologists like Harold Garfinkel say that humans define reality by the way they make sense of their
everyday surroundings. People don’t experience things out of nothing. We shape our reality based on
our individual and cultural experiences. E.g., when a pilot looks up into the sky, he sees good flying
weather or perhaps turbulence. An atmospheric scientist sees oxygen and carbon dioxide. Two lovers
look up into a starry night sky and find romance. And the meteorologist wonders if he’ll still have a job
after predicting rain on this gorgeous day.
To a child and many adults, a blueprint is a meaningless abstraction, but when an architect looks at one
and studies the lines and boxes and symbols on a two-dimensional floor plan of a building under
construction, she can interpret the symbols and draw a picture in her mind about what the finished
building will look like.
Humans do these kinds of
things all the time without
thinking about it. We are
constantly applying meaning
to the things we see and
experience in our world,
drawing our interpretations
from the people around us,
and forming our own views
and our impressions of other
people in the process.
When a white middle-class woman confronts a group of
African-American males walking in her direction on a
sidewalk, does she see and react to them the same way
she would if a group of elderly ladies were hobbling
toward her or a cluster of kindergartners who just
bounded off a school bus? We react according to our
own thoughts and experiences and/or according to what
our society has instilled in us.
A Brief History of Sociology
Sociology is a relatively young science, at least when compared to mathematics, chemistry, and other
hard sciences that have been around since the earliest days of recorded history (Greeks,
Egyptians, Ancient Chinese, etc.)
Sociology wasn’t even invented until the time of the Industrial Revolution (mid 1800s –
less than 200 years ago), when a European named Auguste Comte coined the term.
Comte is considered the Father of Sociology and he is credited with inventing positivism,
which offered a scientific (rather than religious) interpretation of human behavior. Comte used his
sociological imagination (although the term hadn’t been coined at the time) to first imagine and then
describe in detail an ambitious reconstruction of French society that he thought might be extended
globally someday.
Harriet Martineau was one of the early Sociologists to interpret Comte’s work and
translate it, and to add greater insights into the young science of Sociology. Very few
women attended college in those days, but wealthy women had servants to do the
housework, so rich girls often went to college to study the humanities. Martineau was
one of those women. She was a pioneer in the new science of Sociology.
Herbert Spencer was a conservative aristocrat. Born wealthy, Spencer had little tolerance
or pity for the poor and he blamed them for their lot in life. He was a strong believer in
something he called Social Darwinism – the principle of survival of the fittest applied to
human civilization. Spencer’s theories are largely discredited today, even though the
fundamental underpinnings of Spencer’s thinking are foundational to modern
Conservatism. The harsh form of his Social Darwinist approach bears a strong
resemblance to Hitler’s Nazism, and has been largely replaced by more humane and
tolerant attitudes. I cannot help but wonder if Spencer would have made the same arguments if he had
been born poor rather than rich.
Social Darwinists’ view of the world is that people who are rich are rich because they were born better,
worked harder, had better genes, and therefore deserve to be “on top,” and that the poor were weak,
lazy, defective lesser human beings who deserve to be poor and at the bottom of the social ladder.
Social Darwinists argue that defective human beings should not be helped or assisted because that
might take away precious resources needed by the better people of the world. If you extend this logic
further, Social Darwinists believe you risk “watering down the gene pool” by spending resources to keep
dysfunctional people alive and allowing them to reproduce more “defective children.” Social Darwinists
think that society should not concern itself with eliminating poverty or helping the misfortunate (or the
disabled) because the laws of nature dictate that such weak specimens should be allowed to die off.
Hitler, the ultimate extreme conservative, for example believed that certain people were superior to
others and that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding. A central policy of
Hitler’s administration was “protection of the superior race.” This meant preventing “inferior races”
from mixing with those judged superior, to reduce contamination of the master race’s gene pool. Hitler
and his followers bought into Darwin’s original “survival of the fittest” theory, and this philosophy
culminated in what Hitler called the “final solution,” the extermination of approximately six million Jews
and four million other people (gypsies, et. al) who belonged to what Nazis judged as “inferior races.”
The more modern incarnations of Social Darwinists include right wing politicians like Andre Bauer, the
former Lt Governor of South Carolina, who promised to cut off welfare benefits to poor people in his
state because feeding poor people allowed them to breed. Or, perhaps ultra-conservative
Congresswoman Mary Franson of
My grandmother was not a highly educated woman but she
Minnesota who, at a Tea Party event,
told me as a child to quit feeding stray animals. You know
compared food stamp recipients to wild
why? Because they breed! You’re facilitating the problem if
animals. She encouraged ending the Food
you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will
stamp program by saying “When you go to
reproduce. Especially the ones that don’t think much farther
the parks and rec, or the parks
than that
— Andre Bauer
department, they say don't feed the animals because they may become dependent and not be able to
take care of themselves."
Two Other Key Sociologists
No one should take a course in Sociology and not know the names Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.
These two men are arguably the greatest sociologists of all time. Durkheim and Weber were to
Sociology what Galileo and Copernicus were to Astronomy.
Emile Durkheim is credited with inventing a lot of the sociological terms and
concepts used almost universally today to explain human behavior, organizations,
and social institutions. He wrote about the ways societies could maintain their
integrity and coherence in the modern diversified era, following the fragmentation
of the religious, racial, and ethnic solidarity of the past. His sociological
perspective was to see society as comparable to a living organism, with specialized
parts (e.g. brain, heart, liver, etc.) that work harmoniously together in an
integrated way. To Durkheim, society had to be seen as more than the sum of its
individual components. He sought to see the big picture and how all of the parts
worked together. Durkheim is the consummate structural-functionalist.
Max Weber (pronounced Vay’ burr), helped explain organizations and bureaucracy
and the ways people behave in macro ways to get their needs met (perform social
functions). He compared modern Industrialized European to ancient civilizations
(China, India, etc.) and the rise of capitalism in the West. He studied the way people
organize themselves in complex ways to accomplish tasks on a large scale. He is
closely associated with the term bureaucracy.
These two men are so important, you will see them mentioned repeatedly in Sociology textbooks. That
is because most of what is in any Sociology textbook is founded on the thinking of these two gentlemen.
W.E.B. Dubois There are many other important sociologists, like
Robert Merton, Talcott Parsons, C. Wright Mills, et. al., who are
studied in the advanced courses of Sociology. But one other
Sociologist who should be familiar to students of the introductory
course is W.E.B. Dubois. He was the first African-American to earn a
doctorate at Harvard and who helped create the N.A.A.C.P. He
challenged people to develop a sociological perspective he called
“double consciousness,” a way of seeing ourselves as the product of
our economic and racial underpinnings. He described the way race
influences the way we think about ourselves, and he used the experience of slavery to show how it
shaped the self-concept and the personal perspectives of African Americans.
The Chicago School and Jane Addams (1860-1935) – Jane Addams, considered the founder of social
work and the settlement house movement after the American Civil War,
studied immigrants and the freed slaves swarming into the cities. She and
many others from the University of Chicago developed much of what we now
call the sciences of sociology and social work.