Sociological Perspectives

What you’ll learn to do: differentiate between the three main

theoretical paradigms in sociology and describe how they are used

In this section, you’ll learn about how sociologists use paradigms to understand the
social world. A paradigm is a broad viewpoint, perspective, or lens that permit social
scientists to have a wide range of tools to describe society, and then to build
hypotheses and theories. You can also consider paradigms to be guiding principles or
belief systems. In the text, you’ll sometimes see the word paradigm used
interchangeably with perspective, theory, or approach.

In sociology, there are three main paradigms: the functionalist paradigm, the conflict

paradigm, and the symbolic interactionist paradigm. These are not all of the paradigms,
however, and we’ll consider others as well as more specific topic-based variations of
each of the “Big Three” theories. As you read through the material in this section,
consider which paradigm resonates the most with your own views about society.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

 Explain sociological theories

 Summarize the structural-functional theory
  Apply the structural-functional theory
 Summarize conflict theory
 Apply conflict theory
 Summarize symbolic interactionism
 Apply symbolic interactionism
 Differentiate between theoretical perspectives in the study of a particular
social issue

The Main Sociological Theories

Figure 1. Sociologists develop theories to explain social occurrences such as protest rallies. (Photo courtesy of
voanews.com/Wikimedia Commons)

Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns, and they develop a theory in
an attempt to explain why things work as they do. A sociological theory seeks to
explain social phenomena. Theories can be used to create a testable proposition, called
a hypothesis, about society (Allan 2006).

Theories vary in scope depending on the scale of the issues that they are meant to
explain. Macro-level theories relate to large-scale issues and large groups of people,
while micro-level theories look at very specific relationships between individuals or
small groups. Grand theories attempt to explain large-scale relationships and answer
fundamental questions such as why societies form and why they change. Sociological
theory is constantly evolving and should never be considered complete. Classic
sociological theories are still considered important and current, but new sociological
theories build upon the work of their predecessors and add to them (Calhoun 2002).

In sociology, a few theories provide broad perspectives that help explain many different
aspects of social life, and these are called paradigms. Paradigms are philosophical and
theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations,
and the experiments performed in support of them. Three paradigms have come to
dominate sociological thinking, because they provide useful explanations: structural
functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Sociological Paradigm Level of Analysis Focus

Structural Functionalism Macro or mid The way each part of society functions together to contribute to the

Conflict Theory Macro The way inequalities contribute to social differences and perpetuat

Symbolic Interactionism Micro One-to-one interactions and communications

Sociological Theories or Perspectives. Different sociological perspectives enable sociologists to view social issues

WATCH IT

Watch the following video for an overview of each of the sociological paradigms. First, the video
introduces major sociological theories in general terms, then gives an overview of structural-
functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. Structural functionalism views society
as an organism in which the various parts, or social structures, fulfill certain functions to meet
the needs of the society. Conflict theory imagines society as a struggle for scarce resources and
focuses on the conflicts created by competition and power differences. Conflict theory includes
sub-categories such as class conflict theory, race conflict theory, and gender conflict theory.
Symbolic interactionism focuses more on individuals and the shared reality that people create
through their own experiences.

TRY IT

Structural-Functional Theory

Sociological Paradigm #1: Structural-functional theory

Figure 2. Functionalism emphasizes how various social institutions work together to meet the needs of a
society.
Structural-functional theory, also called functionalism, sees society as a structure
with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the
individuals in that society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher
and biologist, Hebert Spencer (1820–1903), who saw similarities between society and
the human body. He argued that just as the various organs of the body work together to
keep the body functioning, the various parts of society work together to keep society
functioning (Spencer 1898). The parts of society that Spencer referred to were
the social institutions, or patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused on meeting social
needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare, religion, and the economy.

Émile Durkheim, another early sociologist, applied Spencer’s theory to explain how
societies change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that society is a complex
system of interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability
(Durkheim 1893), and that society is held together by shared values, languages, and
symbols. Durkheim believed that individuals may make up society, but in order to study
society, sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts. Social facts are the
laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and all of the cultural
rules that govern social life (Durkheim 1895). Each of these social facts serves one or
more functions within a society. For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to
protect society from violence, while another is to punish criminal behavior, while another
is to preserve public safety.

Although suicide is generally considered an individual phenomenon, Émile Durkheim

was interested in studying the social factors that affect it. He studied social ties within a
group, or social solidarity, and hypothesized that differences in suicide rates might be
explained by religion-based differences. Durkheim gathered a large amount of data
about Europeans who had ended their lives, and he did indeed find differences based
on religion. Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics in Durkheim’s
society, and his work on this topic demonstrated the utility of theory for sociological
research.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that
social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the consequences
of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the
unsought consequences of a social process. A manifest function of college education,
for example, includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job
that utilizes that education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new
people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner.
Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the
level of education attained. Latent functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social
processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are
called dysfunctions. In education, examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades,
truancy, dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.

TRY IT
Criticism

One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately explain social
change. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of this theory; repetitive
behavior patterns are assumed to have a function, yet we profess to know that they
have a function only because they are repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may
continue, even though they don’t serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the
basic premise of the theory. Many sociologists now believe that functionalism is no
longer useful as a macro-level theory, but that it does serve a useful purpose in some
mid-level analyses.

A GLOBAL CULTURE?

Figure 3. Some sociologists see the online world contributing to the creation of an emerging global culture. Are you a
part of any global communities? (Photo courtesy of quasireversible/flickr)

Sociologists around the world look closely for signs of what would be an unprecedented event:
the emergence of a global culture. In the past, empires such as those that existed in China,
Europe, Africa, and Central and South America linked people from many different countries, but
those people rarely became part of a common culture. They lived too far from each other, spoke
different languages, practiced different religions, and traded few goods. Today, increases in
communication, travel, and trade have made the world a much smaller place. More and more
people are able to communicate with each other instantly—wherever they are located—by
telephone, video, and text. They share movies, television shows, music, games, and information
over the Internet. Students can study with teachers and pupils from the other side of the globe.
Governments find it harder to hide conditions inside their countries from the rest of the world.
Sociologists research many different aspects of this potential global culture. Some explore the
dynamics involved in the social interactions of global online communities, such as when
members feel a closer kinship to other group members than to people residing in their own
countries. Other sociologists study the impact this growing international culture has on smaller,
less-powerful local cultures. Yet other researchers explore how international markets and the
outsourcing of labor impact social inequalities. Sociology can play a key role in people’s abilities
to understand the nature of this emerging global culture and how to respond to it.
 TRY IT

Conflict Theory

Sociological Paradigm #2: Conflict Theory

Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources. This perspective

is a macro-level approach most identified with the writings of German philosopher and
sociologist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who saw society as being made up of two classes,
the bourgeoisie (capitalist) and the proletariat (workers), who must compete for social,
material, and political resources such as food and housing, employment, education, and
leisure time. Social institutions like government, education, and religion reflect this
competition in their inherent inequalities and help maintain the unequal social structure.

In the economic sphere, Marx focused on the “mode of production” (e.g., the industrial
factory) and “relations of production” (e.g., unequal power between workers and factory
owners). The bourgeoisie owns and controls the means of production, which leads
to exploitation due to the profit motive. In this arrangement, proletarians have only their
labor to sell, and do not own or control capital. False consciousness is Marx’s term
for the proletarian’s inability to see her real position within the class system, a mis-
recognition that is complicated by the control that the bourgeoisie often exerts over the
media outlets that disseminate and normalize information. These are just some of the
structural constrains that prevent workers from joining together in what Marx
called class consciousness, or a common group identity as exploited proletarians and
potential revolutionaries.

WATCH IT

Watch this video for an overview of Marx’s conflict theory.

Figure 4. Max Weber.

German sociologist Max Weber agreed with some of Marx’s main ideas, but also
believed that in addition to economic inequalities, there were inequalities of political
power and social structure that caused conflict. Weber noted that different groups were
affected differently based on education, race, and gender, and that people’s reactions to
inequality were moderated by class differences and rates of social mobility, as well as
by perceptions about the legitimacy of those in power.

Ida B. Wells articulated the conflict perspective when she theorized a connection
between an increase in lynching and an increase in black socio-economic mobility in the
United States from the late 1800s into the mid-20th century. She also examined
competition within the feminist movement as women fought for the right to vote, yet the
presumably egalitarian mainstream suffragist movements were headed by white women
who excluded black women from suffrage. W.E.B. DuBois also examined race in the
U.S. and in U.S. colonies from a conflict perspective, and emphasized the importance of
a reserve labor force, made up of black men. Race conflict paradigms will be examined
later in the course in the module devoted to race and ethnicity.

RACE AND CONFLICT THEORY

W.E.B. DuBois is a classic sociologist who, after earning a Ph.D. from Harvard University in
1895 (the first black man to do so), went on to an extremely productive career with extensive
publication, research, theorizing, and activism. The Philadelphia Negro  (1896) is considered
one of the first examples of scientifically framed and conducted sociology research. DuBois’
study included over 2,500 in-person interviews conducted with African American households in
the seventh ward of Philadelphia and even had visual representations of data such as bar
graphs to illustrate the realities of racism
[1]

He entered the national stage with an article written for The Atlantic  in 1897 in which he
described double consciousness. Read the following passage from DuBois’ article as he
articulates double consciousness:
“It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at
one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world
that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One feels his two-ness, — an American, a
Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one
dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. The history
of the American Negro is the history of this strife, — this longing to attain self-conscious
manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he
wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He does not wish to Africanize America,
for America has too much to teach the world and Africa; he does not with to bleach his
Negro blood in a flood of white Americanism, for he believes—foolishly, perhaps, but
fervently—that Negro blood has yet a message for the world. He simply wishes to make
it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American without being cursed and spit
upon by his fellows, without losing the opportunity of self-development.” [2]

C. Wright Mills, who coined the term sociological imagination, also used conflict

theory to examine systems of power and the ways in which government, military, and
corporations forming a power elite (1956) in the United States in the 1950s. Bernie
Sanders raised these issues in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by pointing out that
both Republican and Democrat candidates were accepting campaign contributions from
banks and investment firms on Wall Street, which he argued would make them subject
to corporate influence.

TRY IT

Criticism

Just as structural functionalism was criticized for focusing too much on the stability of
societies, conflict theory has been criticized because it tends to focus on conflict to the
exclusion of recognizing stability. Many social structures are extremely stable or have
gradually progressed over time rather than changing abruptly, as conflict theory would
suggest.

TRY IT

GENDER AND CONFLICT THEORY

Figure 5. Over the years, feminist demands have changed. First-wave feminists fought for basic citizenship rights,
such as the right to vote, while third wave feminists are concerned with more complex social movements, like post-
structuralism.

Feminist theory was developed to fill a void in Marxism and neo-Marxism that examined
class, but not gender as a distinct category. Feminist theory examines gender and gender
inequality and also points out the male-centric aspects of conflict theory. It focuses on analyzing
the limitations faced by women when they claim the right to equality with men. Additionally,
feminist scholars examine the gendered nature of human interactions, which makes it a
microsociological as opposed to a macrosociological theory.
Feminist scholars study a range of topics, including sexual orientation, race, economic status,
and nationality. However, at the core of feminist sociology is the idea that, in most societies,
women have been systematically oppressed, and that men have been historically dominant.
This system of seemingly “natural” male control is referred to as patriarchy.
From the early work of women sociologists like Harriet Martineau, feminist sociology has
focused on the power relationships and inequalities between women and men. How can the
conditions of inequality faced by women be addressed?
Feminist theory has been criticized for its early focus on the lived experiences of white,
educated women—which represent just a small subset within American
society. Intersectional theory examines multiple, overlapping identities that include black,
Latina, Asian, gay, trans, working class, poor, single parent, working, stay-at-home, immigrant,
and undocumented women, among others. This synthesis of analytical categories takes into
consideration the various lived experiences of a more diverse range of women.
To take a contemporary example, the #MeToo movement began when white actress Ashley
Judd came forward in 2017 and claimed that film producer Harvey Weinstein invited her to his
hotel room, greeted her in a bathrobe, and asked her to massage him or watch him shower. The
phrase “me too” had actually been coined in 2006 by Turana Burke, a black activist who sought
to bring attention to women who had been sexually assaulted. Many other wealthy, white,
powerful woman came forward and said or tweeted #MeToo. Within one year, the #MeToo
movement had become intersectional, stretching across industries, racial and ethnic
backgrounds, age, sexual orientation, and gender identities.

TRY IT

Symbolic Interactionist Theory

Sociological Paradigm #3: Symbolic Interactionist Theory

is a micro-level theory that focuses on meanings attached to human interaction, both

verbal and non-verbal, and to symbols. Communication—the exchange of meaning
through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense
of their social worlds.

Charles Horton Cooley introduced the looking-glass self (1902) to describe how a

person’s self of self grows out of interactions with others, and he proposed a threefold
process for this development: 1) we see how others react to us, 2) we interpret that
reaction (typically as positive or negative) and 3) we develop a sense of self based on
those interpretations. “Looking-glass” is an archaic term for a mirror, so Cooley
theorized that we “see” ourselves when we interact with others.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism,

though he never published his work on this subject (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993).
Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer, actually coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and
outlined these basic premises: humans interact with things based on meanings ascribed
to those things; the ascribed meaning of things comes from our interactions with others
and society; the meanings of things are interpreted by a person when dealing with
things in specific circumstances (Blumer 1969). This sounds close to Cooley’s looking-
glass self, but Mead’s contribution was really to the development of self, especially in
childhood, which we’ll discuss in more detail when we address theories of socialization.
If you love books, for example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned
that books are good or important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school,
or church; maybe your family had a special reading time each week, getting your library
card was treated as a special event, or bedtime stories were associated with warmth
and comfort.

Figure 6. In symbolic interactionism, people actively shape their social world. This image shows janitorial
workers on strike in Santa Monica, California. A symbolic interactionist would be interest in the interactions
between these protestors and the messages they communicate.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of

interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one
interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might
focus on class difference, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how
individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters
use to communicate their message and to negotiate and thus develop shared
meanings.

The focus on the importance of interaction in building a society led sociologists like
Erving Goffman (1922–1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis.
Goffman used theater as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s
interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” Since it can be unclear what part a
person may play in a given situation, as we all occupy multiple roles in a given day (i.e.,
student, friend, son/ daughter, employee, etc.), one has to improvise his or her role as
the situation unfolds (Goffman 1958).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative
research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they
seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that

reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based
on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have
meanings which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the
society.
 TRY IT

WATCH IT

The main tenets of symbolic interactionism are explained in the following video.

Criticism

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of
remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction.
Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths and generally use
research methods that will allow extended observation and/or substantive interviews to
provide depth rather than breadth. Interactionists are also criticized for not paying
enough attention to social institutions and structural constraints. For example, the
interactions between a police officer and a black man are different than the interactions
between a police officer and a white man. Addressing systemic inequalities within the
criminal justice system, including pervasive racism, is essential for an interactionist
understanding of face-to-face interactions.

TRY IT

Reviewing Sociological Theories

The consumption of food is a commonplace, daily occurrence, yet it can also be

associated with important moments in our lives. Eating can be an individual or a group
action, and eating habits and customs are influenced by our cultures. In the context of
society, our nation’s food system is at the core of numerous social movements, political
issues, and economic debates. Let’s see how food consumption may be examined from
each of the three main sociological paradigms.

A structural-functional approach to the topic of food consumption might be interested

in the role of the agriculture industry within the nation’s economy and how this has
changed from the early days of manual-labor farming to modern mechanized
production. Another examination might study the different functions that occur in food
production: from farming and harvesting to flashy packaging and mass
consumerism. Functionalists would also examine how food production is related to
social solidarity and equilibrium through the division of labor and interdependence
among groups in modern society.

A conflict theorist might be interested in the power differentials present in the

regulation of food, and would explore where people’s right to information intersects with
corporations’ drive for profit, and how the government mediates those interests. Or a
conflict theorist might undertake a macro analysis that examines the power that large
farming conglomerates like Monsanto have over comparatively powerless local farmers.
The documentary film Food, Inc. (2009) gives an example of this as it depicts
Monsanto’s patenting of seed technology. Other topics of study might include how
nutrition varies between different social classes or racial and ethnic groups, or why
there are food deserts (places that lack access to fresh produce) in densely populated
areas.

A sociologist viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would

be more interested in micro-level topics, such as the symbolic use of food in religious
rituals, or the role it plays in the social interaction of a family dinner. This perspective
might also study the interactions among group members who identify themselves based
on their sharing a particular diet, such as vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) or
locavores (people who strive to eat locally produced food). Interactionists might also
examine the relationships between farmworkers and their employers, how workers or
the owners of large farms identify/ see themselves, and/or specific symbols that have
taken on importance (i.e. the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) use a bloody t-shirt
to represent violence against farmworkers).

HOW SOCIOLOGICAL PARADIGMS MIGHT VIEW FOOD CONSUMPTION

Just like food production and consumption, every society has a legal system in place to
regulate human behavior. Examine the legal and justice system (policing, course, fines,
jails, prisons etc.) and consider how each theoretical perspective might think about
these things: 
 How would a conflict theorist examine the criminal justice system in the
U.S. and around the world? 
 How would a functionalist examine the criminal justice system in the U.S.
and around the world? 
 How would an interactionist examine the criminal justice system in the U.S.
and around the world? 
What other topics interest you and how can you begin to think about them using the
theoretical paradigms? Which theories do you find yourself gravitating toward and why? 

TRY IT

GLOSSARY

bourgeoisie:
those who owned the means of production (i.e. factory owners in the Industrial
Revolution)
class consciousness:
awareness that one is a proletarian, a worker, and has an understanding of solidarity in
a class struggle against the bourgeoisie
conflict theory:
a theory that examines society as a competition for limited resources
constructivism:
 an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is what humans
cognitively construct it to be
double consciousness:
a term used to describe an individual whose identity is divided into several facets
dramaturgical analysis:
a technique sociologists use in which they view society through the metaphor of
theatrical performance, including role improvisation
dysfunctions:
social patterns that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society
false consciousness:
proletarians are unable to identify and understand their own class position and
exploitation
feminist:
one who believes that females should be equal to males
feminist theory:
the critical analysis of the way gender affects societal structures, power, and inequality
functionalism/structural-functional theory:
a theoretical approach that sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to
meet the biological and social needs of individuals that make up that society
grand theories:
an attempt to explain large-scale relationships and answer fundamental questions such
as why societies form and why they change
hypothesis:
a testable proposition
intersectional theory:
utilizes multiple identities (such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, economic class,
etc.) as important to understanding inequality
latent functions:
the unrecognized or unintended consequences of a social process
looking-glass self:
concept that the development of self occurs through interactions with others, based on
our understanding of how others perceive us
macro-level theories:
a wide-scale view of the role of social structures within a society
manifest functions:
sought consequences of a social process
micro-level theories:
the study of specific relationships between individuals or small groups
paradigms:
philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories,
generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them
patriarchy:
a set of institutional structures (like property rights, access to positions of power and
sources of income) that are based on the belief that males (patri means “father”) are and
should be dominant
power elite:
the dominant individuals and groups within the military, business world, governments,
and other institutions who are at the top of the power hierarchy
proletariat:
those who labor in the means of production (workers) and who do not possess or control
capital, as the bourgeoisie does
social facts:
the laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and all of the
cultural rules that govern social life
social institutions:
patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused on meeting social needs
social solidarity:
the social ties that bind a group of people together such as kinship, shared location, and
religion
symbolic interactionism:
a theoretical perspective through which scholars examine the relationship of individuals
within their society by studying their communication (language and symbols)
theory:
a proposed explanation about social interactions or society

1. Cole, N.L. updated 2017. How WEB DuBois Made His Mark on
Sociology. https://www.thoughtco.com/web-dubois-birthday-3026475 ↵
2. Dubois, W.E.Burghardt. 1897. Strivings of the Negro People. The
Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1897/08/strivin
gs-of-the-negro-people/305446/ ↵

LICENSES AND ATTRIBUTIONS

Three Major Perspectives in Sociology

Sociologists analyze social phenomena at different levels and from different perspectives. From concrete
interpretations to sweeping generalizations of society and social behavior, sociologists study everything
from specific events (the micro level of analysis of small social patterns) to the “big picture” (the macro
level of analysis of large social patterns).

The pioneering European sociologists, however, also offered a broad conceptualization of the
fundamentals of society and its workings. Their views form the basis for today's theoretical perspectives,
or paradigms, which provide sociologists with an orienting framework—a philosophical position—for
asking certain kinds of questions about society and its people.

Sociologists today employ three primary theoretical perspectives: the symbolic interactionist
perspective, the functionalist perspective, and the conflict perspective. These perspectives offer
sociologists theoretical paradigms for explaining how society influences people, and vice versa. Each
perspective uniquely conceptualizes society, social forces, and human behavior (see Table 1).

The symbolic interactionist perspective

The symbolic interactionist perspective, also known as symbolic interactionism, directs sociologists to
consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and how people interact
with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber's assertion that
individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American philosopher
George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.

According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they
act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Verbal conversations, in which spoken
words serve as the predominant symbols, make this subjective interpretation especially evident. The
words have a certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during effective communication, they hopefully
have the same meaning for the “receiver.” In other terms, words are not static “things”; they require
intention and interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who
constantly interpret the world around them. Of course, anything can serve as a symbol as long as it
refers to something beyond itself. Written music serves as an example. The black dots and lines become
more than mere marks on the page; they refer to notes organized in such a way as to make musical
sense. Thus, symbolic interactionists give serious thought to how people act, and then seek to
determine what meanings individuals assign to their own actions and symbols, as well as to those of
others.

Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the American institution of marriage. Symbols may include
wedding bands, vows of life‐long commitment, a white bridal dress, a wedding cake, a Church
ceremony, and flowers and music. American society attaches general meanings to these symbols, but
individuals also maintain their own perceptions of what these and other symbols mean. For example,
one of the spouses may see their circular wedding rings as symbolizing “never ending love,” while the
other may see them as a mere financial expense. Much faulty communication can result from
differences in the perception of the same events and symbols.

Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the “big
picture.” In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the larger issues of society by focusing too
closely on the “trees” (for example, the size of the diamond in the wedding ring) rather than the “forest”
(for example, the quality of the marriage). The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the
influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions.

The functionalist perspective

According to the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each aspect of society is
interdependent and contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The government, or state, provides
education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep
itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good
jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law‐
abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce
order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to
recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high
rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs.
Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and productivity occur.

Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in which members
of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a whole. Emile
Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms:

Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society maintain similar
values and beliefs and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity most commonly occurs in
traditional, simple societies such as those in which everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society
exemplifies mechanical solidarity.

In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when the people in a society are
interdependent, but hold to varying values and beliefs and engage in varying types of work. Organic
solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized, complex societies such those in large American cities
like New York in the 2000s.

The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among American sociologists in the 1940s
and 1950s. While European functionalists originally focused on explaining the inner workings of social
order, American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of human behavior. Among these
American functionalist sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who divides human functions into two
types: manifest functions are intentional and obvious, while latent functions are unintentional and not
obvious. The manifest function of attending a church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship as part of
a religious community, but its latent function may be to help members learn to discern personal from
institutional values. With common sense, manifest functions become easily apparent. Yet this is not
necessarily the case for latent functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed. A
sociological approach in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of
smaller parts and the functions of the whole.

Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an event such as divorce.
Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the part of society's
members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social
environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees active social
change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate naturally for any problems
that may arise.

The conflict perspective

The conflict perspective, which originated primarily out of Karl Marx's writings on class struggles,
presents society in a different light than do the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives.
While these latter perspectives focus on the positive aspects of society that contribute to its stability,
the conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever‐changing nature of society. Unlike
functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect
social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means
social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak.
Conflict theorists, for example, may interpret an “elite” board of regents raising tuition to pay for
esoteric new programs that raise the prestige of a local college as self‐serving rather than as beneficial
for students.

Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective in
favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable interest in
conflict theory. They also expanded Marx's idea that the key conflict in society was strictly economic.
Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality
exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Conflict theorists note that unequal
groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one another. This
constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever‐changing nature of society.

Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory ultimately
attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive aspects of society to
capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in preserving society and social order.