7TH EDITION 1999 BY: JOHN MACIONIS CHAPTER ONE SEEING THE GENERAL IN THE PARTICULAR Peter Berger

(1963) described the sociologi cal perspective as seeing the general in the particular. By this, he meant that sociologists identify general patterns in the behavior of particular people. Alt hough every individual is unique, society acts differently on various categories of people (say, children compared to adults, women versus men, the rich as oppo sed to the poor). We begin to think sociologically by realizing how the general categories into which we fall shape our particular life experiences. This text explores the power of society to shape our thoughts, feelings, and act ions. The Harvard graduates mentioned in the opening to this chapter, for exampl e, come from more privileged social backgrounds than the graduates of Pine Stree t Inn. In general, the more privileged people's social background, the more conf ident and optimistic they are about their own lives. And with good reason, as th ey are likely to have more opportunities as well as the training and skills to t ake advantage of them. Seeing the world sociologically also makes us aware of the importance of gender. As Chapter 13 ("Gender Stratification") describes, every society attaches meani ng to being either female or male and gives women and men different kinds of wor k and family responsibilities. Here, again, society influences us throughout the course of our lives as we encounter advantages and opportunities depending on o ur sex. SEEING THE STRANGE IN THE FAMILIAR At first, using the sociological perspective amounts to seeing the strange in the familiar. This does not mean that sociologi sts focus on the bizarre elements of society. Rather, looking at the world socio logically means giving up the familiar idea that human behavior is simply a matt er of what people decide to do, in favor of the initially strange notion that so ciety has a hand in shaping our lives. For individualistic North Americans, learning to "see" how society affects us ma y take a bit of practice. Say someone asked you why you "chose" to enroll at you r particular college. In response, you might offer any of the following particul ar reasons: "I wanted to stay close to home." "I got a basketball scholarship." "With a journalism degree from this university, I can get a good job." "My girlfriend goes to school here." "I didn't get in to the school I really wanted to attend." Such responses may well be true. But do they tell the whole story? Thinking sociologically about going to college, we might first realize that, aro und the world, perhaps one person in one hundred ever gets a college degree. Eve n in the United States, had we lived a century ago, the "choice" of going to col lege probably never would have been an option. Today, a look around the classroo m shows that social forces still have much to do with college attendance. Typica lly, college students are relatively young-generally between eighteen and twenty -four. Why? Because in our society, attending college is linked to this period o f life. But more than age is involved, since fewer than half of all young men an d women actually end up on campus. Another factor is cost. Because higher education is so expensive, college studen ts tend to come from families with above-average incomes. As Chapter 20 ("Educat ion") explains, if you are lucky enough to belong to a family earning more than $75,000, you are almost three times as likely to go to college as someone whose family earns less than $20,000 each year. Also, because both race and ethnicity are linked to income, a greater share of white people (68 percent) end up "choos ing" to go to college than African Americans (60 percent) and Hispanics1 (66 per cent). Figure 1-1, on page 5, illustrates this social pattern. INDIVIDUALITY IN SOCIAL CONTEXT Evidence of how social forces affect human behav

ior comes from the study of suicide. What could be a more "personal" choice than taking one's own life? But Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), one of sociology's pione ers, showed that social forces are at work even in the apparently isolated act o f self-destruction. Examining official records in his native France, Durkheim found that some catego ries of people were more likely than others to take their own lives. He found th at men, Protestants, wealthy people, and the unmarried each had significantly hi gher suicide rates than did women, Catholics and Jews, the poor, and married peo ple. Durkheim explained the differences in terms of social integration: Categori es of people with strong social ties had low suicide rates, whereas more individ ualistic people had high suicide rates. In the male-dominated society studied by Durkheim, men certainly had more freedo m than women. But despite its advantages, freedom also contributes to social iso lation and a higher suicide rate. Likewise, individualistic Protestants were mor e prone to suicide than traditional Catholics and Jews, whose rituals foster str onger social ties. The wealthy have much more economic and personal freedom than the poor but, once again, at the cost of a higher suicide rate. Finally, can yo u see why single people, compared to married people, are also at greater risk? A century later, Durkheim's analysis still holds true (Thorlindsson & Bjarnason, 1998). Figure 1-2 shows suicide rates for four categories of people in the Unit ed States. In 1997, there were 12.4 recorded suicides for every 100,000 white pe ople, which is twice the rate for African Americans (6.2). For both races, suici de was more common among men than among women. White men (20.2) were more than f our times as likely as white women (4.9) to take their own lives. Among African Americans, the rate for men (10.9) was nearly six times higher than for women (1 .9). Following Durkheim's logic, the higher suicide rate among white people and men reflects their greater wealth and freedom. On the other hand, the lower rate among women and people of color follows from their limited social choices. Just as in Durkheim's day, then, we can see general sociological patterns in the per sonal actions of particular individuals. THE IMPORTANCE OF GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE December 10, 1994, Fez, Morocco. This medie val city-a web of narrow streets and alleyways-is alive with the laughter of pla ying children, the silence of veiled women, and the steady gaze of men leading d onkeys laden with goods. Fez has changed little over the centuries. Here, in nor thwest Africa, we are just a few hundred miles from the more familiar rhythms of Europe. Yet this place seems a thousand years away. Never have we had such an a dventure! Never have we thought so much about home! As new information technology draws even the farthest reaches of the earth close r to each other, many academic disciplines take a global perspective, the study of the larger world and our society's place in it. What is the importance of a g lobal perspective for sociology? First, global awareness is a logical extension of the sociological perspective. Sociology shows us that our place in society profoundly affects our life experie nces. It stands to reason, then, that the position of our society in the larger world system affects everyone in the United States. The box describes a "global village" to show the social shape of the world and the place of the United State s within it. Global Map 1-1 provides a visual guide to the relative economic development of t he world's countries. High-income countries are industrialized nations in which most people have relatively high incomes.2 High-income countries include the Uni ted States and Canada, most of Western Europe, Israel, Japan, and Australia. Tak en together, these forty nations produce most of the world's goods and services and control most of the wealth. On average, individuals in these countries live well, not because they are smarter than anyone else, but because they had the go od fortune to be born in an affluent region of the world. The world's middle-income countries are nations with limited industrialization a nd moderate personal income. Individuals living in any of these roughly ninety n ations-the countries of Eastern Europe, some of southern Africa, and almost all of Latin America-are more likely to live in rural villages than in cities, to wa lk or ride tractors, scooters, bicycles, or animals rather than drive automobile

s, and to receive only a few years of schooling. Most middle-income countries al so have marked social inequality, so that while some people are extremely rich ( the sheiks of oil-producing nations in the Middle East, for example), many more lack safe housing and adequate nutrition. Finally, about half of the world's people live in the sixty low-income countries , nations with little industrialization in which most people are poor. As Global Map 1-1 shows, most of the poorest countries in the world are in Africa and Asi a. Here, again, a few people are very rich, but the majority struggle to get by with poor housing, unsafe water, too little food, limited sanitation, and, perha ps most seriously of all, little chance to improve their lives. Chapter 12 ("Global Stratification") details the causes and consequences of glob al wealth and poverty. But every chapter of this text highlights life in the wor ld beyond our own borders for three reasons: 1. Societies the world over are increasingly interconnected. Historically the Un ited States has taken only passing note of the countries beyond its own borders. In recent decades, however, the United States and the rest of the world have be come linked as never before. Electronic technology now transmits sounds, picture s, and written documents around the globe in seconds. One consequence of new technology, as later chapters explain, is that people all over the world now share many tastes in music, clothing, and food. With their e conomic clout, high-income countries such as the United States influence other n ations, whose people eagerly gobble up our hamburgers, dance to our music, and, more and more, speak the English language. We are spreading our way of life around the world; but the larger world, too, ha s an impact on us. About 1 million documented immigrants entered the United Stat es annually during the 1990s, and we have been quick to adopt many of their fash ions and foods as our own, which greatly enhances the racial and cultural divers ity of this country. Commerce across national boundaries has also created a global economy. Large cor porations make and market goods worldwide, and financial markets linked by satel lite communication operate around the clock. Stock traders in New York follow th e financial markets in Tokyo and Hong Kong, even as wheat farmers in Iowa watch the price of grain in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. With eight out of t en new U.S. jobs involving international trade, global understanding has never b een more important. 2. Many problems that we face in the United States are far more serious elsewher e. Poverty is a serious problem in this country. But, as Chapter 12 ("Global Str atification") explains, poverty in Latin America, Africa, and Asia is both more common and more serious. Similarly, although women have lower social standing th an men in the United States, inequality is much greater in poor countries of the world. 3. Thinking globally is a good way to learn more about ourselves. We cannot walk the streets of a distant city without becoming keenly aware of what it means to live in the United States. Making global comparisons also leads to unexpected l essons. For instance, in Chapter 12, we visit a squatter settlement in Madras, I ndia. There, despite a desperate lack of basic material goods, people thrive in the love and support of family members. Why, then, is poverty in the United Stat es associated with isolation and anger? Are material comforts-so crucial to our definition of a "rich" life-the best way to gauge human well-being? In sum, in an increasingly interconnected world, we can understand ourselves onl y to the extent that we comprehend others (Macionis, 1993). SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL MARGINALITY From time to time, we are all "outsiders." For some categories of people, howeve r, being an outsider-not part of the dominant group-is part of daily living. The greater people's social marginality, the better able they are to use the sociol ogical perspective. No African American, for example, grows up in the United States without learning how much race affects personal experience. But white people, as the dominant ma jority, think less often about race and believe it affects only people of color,

not themselves. Women, gay people, individuals with disabilities, and the very old are also, to some degree, "outsiders." People at the margins of social life are aware of social patterns that others rarely think about. To become better at using the sociological perspective, therefore, we must step back from our famil iar routines and look at our lives with new awareness and curiosity. Back to summary list. BENEFITS OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Applying the sociological perspective to our daily lives benefits us in four way s: 1. The sociological perspective helps us assess the truth of "common sense." Ide as we take for granted are not always true. One good example, noted earlier, is the notion that we are free individuals who are personally responsible for our o wn lives. If we think people decide their own fate, we may be quick to praise pa rticularly successful people as superior and consider others with more modest ac hievements personally deficient. A sociological approach, by contrast, encourage s us to ask whether commonly held beliefs are actually true and, to the extent t hat they are not, why they are so widely held. 2. The sociological perspective helps us assess both opportunities and constrain ts in our lives. Sociological thinking leads us to see that, in the game of life , we have a say in how to play our cards, but it is society that deals us the ha nd. The more we understand the game, the better players we will be. Sociology he lps us "size up" our world so we can pursue our goals more effectively. 3. The sociological perspective empowers us to be active participants in our soc iety. The more we understand about how society works, the more active citizens w e become. For some, this may mean supporting society as it is; others, however, may attempt nothing less than changing the entire world in some way. Evaluating any aspect of social life-whatever your goal-requires identifying social forces and assessing their consequences. In the box, C. Wright Mills describes the powe r of using the sociological perspective. 4. The sociological perspective helps us live in a diverse world. North American s represent just 5 percent of the world's people, and, as the remaining chapters of this book explain, much of the other 95 percent lead lives that differ drama tically from our own. Still, like people everywhere, we tend to define our own w ay of life as "right," "natural," and "better." The sociological perspective enc ourages us to think critically about the relative strengths and weaknesses of al l ways of life-including our own. Back to summary list. SOCIAL CHANGE AND SOCIOLOGY Striking transformations during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries greatly changed European society. Three changes are especially important to the developm ent of sociology: the rise of a factory-based industrial economy, the explosive growth of cities, and new ideas about democracy and political rights. A New Industrial Economy During the European Middle Ages, most people tilled fields near their homes or e ngaged in small-scale manufacturing (a word derived from Latin words meaning "to make by hand"). But by the end of the eighteenth century, inventors had used ne w sources of energy-the power of moving water and then steam-to operate large ma chines in mills and factories. Now, instead of laboring at home or in tightly kn it groups, workers became part of a large and anonymous labor force, toiling for strangers who owned the factories. This change in the system of production sepa rated families and weakened the traditions that had governed community life for centuries. The Growth of Cities Across Europe, factories drew people in need of work. Along with this "pull" cam e the "push" of the "enclosure movement." Landowners fenced off more and more gr ound, turning farms into grazing land for sheep-the source of wool for the thriv ing textile mills. Without land, countless tenant farmers left the countryside i n search of work in the new factories. Cities grew to unprecedented size. The new urban dwellers contended with mountin g social problems, including pollution, crime, and homelessness. Living on stree

ts crowded with strangers, they adapted to the new, impersonal social environmen t. Political Change During the Middle Ages, when people viewed society as an expression of God's wil l, royalty claimed to rule by "divine right," and each person up and down the so cial ladder played a part in the holy plan. This theological view of society is captured in lines from the old Anglican hymn "All Things Bright and Beautiful": The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly And ordered their estate. But economic development and the rapid growth of cities soon brought new politic al ideas. By about 1600, tradition was under spirited attack. In the writings of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), and Adam Smith (1723-1790), we see a shift in focus from people's moral obligations to God and their rulers to the idea that people should pursue their own self-interests. In the new polit ical climate philosophers spoke of individual liberty and individual rights. Ech oing Locke, our own Declaration of Independence asserts that every individual ha s "certain unalienable rights," including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap piness." The French Revolution that began in 1789 symbolized this dramatic break with pol itical and social tradition. The French social analyst Alexis de Tocqueville (18 05-1859) declared that the changes in society brought about by the French Revolu tion amounted to "nothing short of the regeneration of the whole human race" (19 55:13; orig. 1856). A New Awareness of Society Huge factories, exploding cities, a new spirit of individualism-these changes co mbined to make people aware of their surroundings. As the social ground trembled under people's feet, the new discipline of sociology was born in England, Franc e, and Germany- precisely where the changes were greatest. Back to summary list. SCIENCE AND SOCIOLOGY The nature of society fascinated the brilliant thinkers of the ancient world, in cluding the Chinese philosopher K'ung Fu-tzu, or Confucius, (551-479 b.c.e.) and the Greek philosophers Plato (c. 427-347 b.c.e.) and Aristotle (384-322 b.c.e.) .3 Later, the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180), the medieval thinkers St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) and Christine de Pizan (c. 1363-1431), and the gr eat English playwright William Shakespeare (1564-1616) took up the question. Yet these thinkers were more interested in envisioning the ideal society than in analyzing society as it really was. In creating their new discipline, sociology 's pioneers certainly cared how society could be improved, but their major goal was to understand society as it actually operates. It was the French social thin ker Auguste Comte (1798-1857) who coined the term sociology in 1838 to describe this new way of thinking. Thus, sociology is among the youngest academic discipl ines-far newer than history, physics, or economics, for example. Comte (1975; orig. 1851-54) saw sociology as the product of a three-stage histor ical development. During the earliest theological stage, from the beginning of human history to th e end of the European Middle Ages about 1350 c.e., people took a religious view of society, seeing it as an expression of God's will. With the Renaissance, the theological approach gave way to what Comte called the metaphysical stage. During this period, people understood society as a natural rather than a supernatural phenomenon. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), for example, t hought that society reflected not the perfection of God so much as the failings of a selfish human nature. What Comte called the scientific stage of history began with the work of early s cientists such as the Polish astronomer Copernicus (1473-1543), the Italian astr

onomer and physicist Galileo (1564-1642), and the English physicist and mathemat ician Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Comte's contribution came in applying the scient ific approach, which was first used to study the physical world, to the study of society.4 Comte thus favored positivism, defined as a way of understanding based on scienc e. As a positivist, Comte believed that society conforms to invariable laws, muc h as the physical world operates according to gravity and other laws of nature. At the beginning of the twentieth century, sociology emerged as an academic disc ipline in the United States, strongly influenced by Comte's ideas. Today, most s ociologists still consider science a crucial part of sociology. But, as Chapter 2 ("Sociological Investigation") explains, we now realize that human behavior is far more complex than the movement of planets or even the actions of other livi ng things. This is because humans are creatures of imagination and spontaneity, so that our behavior can never be fully explained by any rigid "laws of society. " In addition, early sociologists like Karl Marx (1818-1883), whose ideas are di scussed in Chapter 4 ("Society"), were deeply troubled by the striking inequalit y of the new industrial society. Marx wanted the new discipline of sociology not just to understand society but to bring about change toward social justice. Back to summary list. SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Weaving observations into understanding brings us to another aspect of sociology : theory. A theory is a statement of how and why specific facts are related. Mor e to the point, the job of sociological theory is to explain social behavior in the real world. Recall Emile Durkheim's theory that categories of people with low social integra tion (men, Protestants, the wealthy, and the unmarried) are especially prone to suicide. As Durkheim pondered the issue of suicide, he considered any number of possible theories. But which one was correct? To evaluate a theory, as the next chapter explains, sociologists gather evidence using various methods of scientific research. Facts allow sociologists to confi rm some theories while rejecting or modifying others. Thus, Durkheim collected data that revealed patterns showing certain categories of people are more likely to commit suicide. These data allowed Durkheim to sett le on a theory that best squared with all available evidence. National Map 1-1 d isplays the suicide rate for each of the fifty states and gives you a chance to do some theorizing of your own. In building theory, sociologists face two basic questions: What issues should we study? How should we connect the facts? How they answer these questions depends on their theoretical "road map" or paradigm (Kuhn, 1970). A theoretical paradig m is a basic image of society that guides thinking and research. The three major paradigms in sociology are the structural-functional paradigm, the social-confl ict paradigm, and the symbolic-interaction paradigm. Back to summary list. THE STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL PARADIGM The structural-functional paradigm is a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. As its name suggests, this paradigm points to social structure, meani ng any relatively stable pattern of social behavior. Social structure gives our lives shape, whether it be in families, the workplace, or the classroom. Second, this paradigm looks for a structure's social functions, or consequences for the operation of society as a whole. All social structure-from a simple handshake t o complex religious rituals-functions to keep society going, at least in its pre sent form. The structural-functional paradigm owes much to Auguste Comte, who pointed out t he need for social integration during a time of rapid change. Emile Durkheim, wh o helped establish sociology in French universities, also based his work on this approach. A third structural-functional pioneer was the English sociologist Her bert Spencer (1820-1903). Spencer compared society to the human body. Just as th e structural parts of the human body-the skeleton, muscles, and various internal

organs-function interdependently to help the entire organism survive, social st ructures work together to preserve society. The structural-functional paradigm, then, organizes sociological observations by identifying various structures of s ociety and investigating their functions. As sociology developed in the United States, many of the ideas of Comte, Spencer , and Durkheim were carried forward by Talcott Parsons (1902-1979), the major U. S. proponent of the structural-functional paradigm. Parsons treated society as a system and sought to identify the basic tasks that any and all societies must p erform to survive and the ways they accomplish these tasks. Contemporary U.S. sociologist Robert K. Merton critically expanded our understan ding of the concept of social function. Merton (1968) explains, first, that peop le rarely perceive all the functions of social structure. He describes as manife st functions the recognized and intended consequences of any social pattern. By contrast, latent functions are consequences that are largely unrecognized and un intended. To illustrate, the obvious func- tions of our nation's system of highe r education include providing young people with the information and skills they need to perform jobs. Perhaps just as important, although less often acknowledge d, is college's function as a "marriage broker," bringing together people of sim ilar social backgrounds. Another latent function of higher education is keeping millions of young people out of the labor market where, presumably, many of them would not find jobs. Second, Merton explains, social patterns affect various members of a society dif ferently. For example, conventional families may provide a good setting for rear ing children, but they also confer privileges on men while limiting the opportun ities of women. Merton makes a third important point: Social structure is not always useful. Soc ial dysfunctions are a social pattern's undesirable consequences for the operati on of society. People usually disagree about what is useful or harmful. What is functional for one category of people (say, factory owners or landlords) may wel l be dysfunctional for another category of people (factory workers or tenants). Critical evaluation. The chief characteristic of the structural-functional parad igm is its vision of society as stable and orderly. The main goal of sociologist s who use this approach, then, is to figure out "what makes society tick." In the mid-1900s, most sociologists favored the structural-functional paradigm. In recent decades, however, its influence has declined. By focusing on social st ability and unity, critics point out, structural-functionalism ignores inequalit ies of social class, race, and gender, which can generate considerable tension a nd conflict. In general, focusing on stability at the expense of conflict makes this paradigm somewhat conservative. As a critical response to this approach, so ciologists developed another theoretical orientation: the social-conflict paradi gm. Back to summary list. THE SOCIAL-CONFLICT PARADIGM The social-conflict paradigm is a framework for building theory that sees societ y as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and change. Unlike the struc tural-functional emphasis on solidarity, this approach highlights inequality. So ciologists guided by this paradigm investigate how factors such as social class, race, ethnicity, gender, and age are linked to the unequal distribution of mone y, power, education, and social prestige. A conflict analysis rejects the idea t hat social structure promotes the operation of society as a whole, pointing out instead how social patterns benefit some people while depriving others. The box highlights a key contribution regarding race made by W. E. B. Du Bois. Sociologists using the social-conflict paradigm look at ongoing conflict between dominant and disadvantaged categories of people-the rich in relation to the poo r, white people in relation to people of color, and men in relation to women. Ty pically, people on top strive to protect their privileges, while the disadvantag ed try to gain more for themselves. A conflict analysis of our educational system shows how schooling reproduces cla ss inequality in every new generation. For example, secondary schools assign stu

dents to either college-preparatory or vocational-training programs. From a stru ctural-functional point of view, such "tracking" benefits everyone by providing schooling that fits students' abilities. But conflict analysis counters that tra cking often has less to do with talent than with social background, so that well -to-do students are placed in higher tracks while poor children end up in the lo wer tracks. In this way, young people from privileged families receive the best schooling, w hich serves as a springboard to high-income careers later in life. The children of poor families, on the other hand, are not prepared for college and, like thei r parents before them, typically enter low-paying jobs. In both cases, the socia l standing of one generation is passed on to another, with schools justifying th e practice in terms of individual merit (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Oakes, 1982, 198 5). Social conflict in the United States extends well beyond schools. Later chapters of this book explain how inequality based on class, gender, and race is rooted in the organization of society itself. Many sociologists use the social-conflict paradigm not just to understand societ y but to reduce inequality. This was the goal of W. E. B. Du Bois and also Karl Marx, whose writing was especially important in the development of the social-co nflict paradigm. Marx had little patience with those who sought only to analyze society. In a well-known declaration (inscribed on his monument in London's High gate Cemetery), Marx asserted: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world , in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." Critical evaluation. The social-conflict paradigm has gained a large following i n recent decades. Yet, like other approaches, it has come in for its share of cr iticism. Because the paradigm focuses on inequality, it largely ignores how shar ed values and mutual interdependence unify members of a society. In addition, sa y critics, to the extent that this paradigm pursues political goals, it cannot c laim scientific objectivity. As Chapter 2 ("Sociological Investigation") explain s, however, conflict theorists counter that all theoretical approaches have poli tical consequences, albeit different ones. A final criticism of both the structural-functional and social-conflict paradigm s is that they paint society in broad strokes-in terms of "family," "social clas s," "race," and so on. A third theoretical paradigm depicts society less in term s of broad social structures and more as everyday experiences. Back to summary list. THE SYMBOLIC-INTERACTION PARADIGM The structural-functional and social-conflict paradigms share a macro-level orie ntation, meaning a broad focus on social structures that shape society as a whol e. Macro-level sociology takes in the big picture, rather like observing a city from high above in a helicopter and seeing how highways help people move from pl ace to place or how housing differs in rich and poor neighborhoods. Sociology al so has a micro-level orientation, a close-up focus on social interaction in spec ific situations. Exploring urban life in this way occurs at street level, perhap s observing how children interact on a school playground or how pedestrians resp ond to homeless people. The symbolic-interaction paradigm, then, is a framework for building theory that sees society as the product of the everyday interaction s of individuals. How does "society" result from the ongoing ex- periences of tens of millions of people? One answer, explained in Chapter 6 ("Social Interaction in Everyday Life "), is that "society" amounts to the shared reality that people construct as the y interact with one another. That is, human beings are creatures who live in a w orld of symbols, attaching meaning to virtually everything. "Reality," therefore , is simply how we define our surroundings, our obligations toward others, even our own identities. Of course, this process of definition is subjective and varies from person to pe rson. For example, one person may define a homeless man as "just a bum looking f or a handout" and ignore him, but another might see the man as a "fellow human b eing in need" and offer help. In the same way, one individual may feel a sense o

f security passing by a police officer walking the beat, while another may be se ized by nervous anxiety. Sociologists who take a symbolic-interaction approach, therefore, view society as a complex, ever-changing mosaic of subjective meaning s. The symbolic-interaction paradigm has roots in the thinking of Max Weber (1864-1 920), a German sociologist who emphasized the need to understand a setting from the point of view of the people in it. Weber's approach is discussed in Chapter 4 ("Society"). Since Weber's time, sociologists have taken micro-level sociology in a number of directions. Chapter 5 ("Socialization") discusses the ideas of George Herbert M ead (1863-1931), who explored how we build our personalities from social experie nce. Chapter 6 ("Social Interaction in Everyday Life") presents the work of Ervi ng Goffman (1922-1982), whose dramaturgical analysis describes how we resemble a ctors on a stage as we play out our various roles. Other contemporary sociologis ts, including George Homans and Peter Blau, have developed social-exchange analy sis. In their view, social interaction is guided by what each person stands to g ain and lose from others (Molm, 1997; Mulford et al., 1998). In the ritual of co urtship, for example, people seek mates who offer at least as much-in terms of p hysical attractiveness, intelligence, and social background-as they offer in ret urn. Critical evaluation. The social-interaction paradigm corrects some of the bias f ound in macro-level approaches to society. Without denying the existence of macr o-level social structures such as "the family" and "social class," the symbolicinteraction paradigm reminds us that society basically amounts to people interac ting. That is, micro-level sociology tries to convey how individuals actually ex perience society. The other side of the coin is that, by focusing on day-to-day interactions, the symbolic-interaction paradigm ignores larger social structures , effects of culture, and factors such as class, gender, and race. Table 1-1 summarizes the main characteristics of the structural-functional parad igm, the social-conflict paradigm, and the symbolic-interaction paradigm. Each p aradigm is helpful in answering particular kinds of questions. However, the full est understanding of society comes from using the sociological perspective with all three, as we show with the following analysis of sports in the United States . Back to summary list. APPLYING THE PERSPECTIVES: THE SOCIOLOGY OF SPORT People in the United States love sports. Soccer moms (and dads) drive their eigh t-year-olds to practice, and teens play pick-up basketball after school. Weekend television is filled with sporting events. A large share of the daily news cove rs recent games and the latest on sports stars like Mark McGuire (baseball), Sha quille O'Neal (basketball), and Mia Hamm (soccer). Overall, sports in the United States are a multibillion-dollar industry. What sociological insights can the t hree theoretical paradigms give us about this familiar part of everyday life? The Functions of Sports A structural-functional approach directs attention to the ways sports help socie ty to operate. Their manifest functions include providing recreation, physical c onditioning, and a relatively harmless way to "let off steam." Sports have impor tant latent functions as well, from fostering social relationships to generating tens of thousands of jobs. Perhaps most important, sports encourage competition and the pursuit of success, both of which are central to our way of life. Sports also have dysfunctional consequences. For example, colleges and universit ies intent on fielding winning teams sometimes recruit students for their athlet ic ability rather than their academic aptitude. Not only does this practice pull down the academic standards of a school, it shortchanges athletes who devote li ttle time to academic work. Sports and Conflict A social-conflict analysis begins by pointing out that sports are closely linked to social inequality. Some sports-including tennis, swimming, golf, and skiingare expensive, so participation is largely limited to the well-to-do. Football,

baseball, and basketball, however, are accessible to people of all income levels . In short, the games people play are not simply a matter of choice but also ref lect social standing. Throughout history, sports have been oriented primarily toward males. For exampl e, the first modern Olympic Games, held in 1896, barred women from competition; in the United States, until recently even Little League teams in most parts of t he country did not let girls play. Such exclusion has been defended by unfounded notions that girls and women lack the strength and stamina to play sports or th at women lose their femininity when they do. Thus, our society encourages men to be athletes while expecting women to be attentive observers and cheerleaders. T oday, more women play professional sports than ever before, yet they continue to take a back seat to men, particularly in sports with the most earnings and soci al prestige. Although our society long excluded people of color from big league sports, the o pportunity to earn high incomes in professional sports has expanded in recent de cades. Major League Baseball first admitted African American players when Jackie Robinson broke the color line and joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. Fifty ye ars later, in 1997, when professional baseball retired the legendary Robinson's number 42 on all teams, African Americans (13 percent of the U.S. population) ac counted for 15 percent of Major League Baseball players, 65 percent of National Football League (NFL) players, and 77 percent of National Basketball Association (NBA) players (Center for the Study of Sport in Society, 2000). One reason for the increasing proportion of people of African descent in profess ional sports is that athletic performance-in terms of batting average or number of points scored per game-can be precisely measured, regardless of any white pre judice. It is also true that some people of color make a particular effort to ex cel in athletics, where they perceive greater opportunity than in other careers (Steele, 1990; Hoberman, 1997, 1998). In recent years, in fact, African American athletes have earned higher salaries, on average, than white players. But racial discrimination still taints professional sports in the United States. For one thing, race is linked to the positions athletes play on the field in a pattern called "stacking." Figure 1-3 shows the result of a study of race in foo tball. Notice that white players dominate in offense and also play the central p ositions on both sides of the line. More broadly, African Americans figure promi nently in only five sports: football, basketball, baseball, boxing, and track. A cross all of professional sports, the vast majority of managers, head coaches, a nd owners of sports teams are white (Gnida, 1995; Smith & Leonard, 1997). We might ask who benefits the most from professional sports. Although individual players may get astronomical salaries, and millions of fans enjoy following the ir teams, at bottom, sports are big business-generating property for a small num ber of people (predominantly white men). In sum, sports in the United States are bound up with inequalities based on gender, race, and economic power. Sports as Interaction At a micro-level, a sporting event is a complex drama of face-to-face interactio n. In part, play is guided by the players' assigned positions and the rules of t he game. But players are also spontaneous and unpredictable. Informed by the sym bolic-interaction paradigm, then, we see sports less as a system than as an ongo ing process. From this point of view, too, we expect each player to understand the game a lit tle differently. Some thrive in a setting of stiff competition, whereas for othe rs, love of the game may be greater than the need to win.5 Beyond different attitudes toward competition, team members also shape their par ticular realities according to the various prejudices, jealousies, and ambitions they bring to the game. Then, too, the behavior of any single player also chang es over time. A rookie in professional baseball, for example, may feel self-cons cious during the first few games in the big leagues. In time, however, most play ers fit in comfortably with the team. Coming to feel at home on the field was sl ow and painful for Jackie Robinson-the first African American to play in the maj or leagues, beginning in 1947-who knew that many white players, and millions of white fans, resented his presence. In time, however, his outstanding ability and

his confident and cooperative manner won him the respect of the entire nation. The three theoretical paradigms-structural- functional, social-conflict, and sym bolic-interaction-provide different insights, but none is more correct than the others. Applied to any issue, each paradigm generates its own interpretations so that, to appreciate fully the power of the sociological perspective, you should become familiar with all three. Together, they stimulate debates and controvers ies. In the final box, we review many of the ideas presented in this chapter by asking how sociological generalizations differ from common stereotypes.