Asc 200

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF VIRTUAL AND ODEL
IN COLLABORATION WITH
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES - DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIOLOGY
ASC 200: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL THEORY
WRITTEN BY: EDITED BY:
DR. KIPRUTO TUITOEK GLADYS NYACHIEO
Copyright © Kenyatta University, 2014
All Rights Reserved
Published By:
KENYATTA UNIVERSITY PRESS
1
COURSE CONTENT
LECTURE ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL THEORY MODULE……………...6
1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….….7
1.2 Lecture objectives………………………………………………………………………….7
1.3 Definition of theory/sociological theory……………………………………………….…..8
1.4 Purpose of social theory……………………………………………………………….……9
1.5 Importance of social theory……………………………………………………………….15
1.6 Concept related to social theory……………………………………………………….….16
1.7 The relationship between the research and theory………………………………………..24
1.8 History of sociological theory: the founding fathers………………………………….….26
1.9 Summary…………………………………………………………………………..……...28
1.10 Self test questions…………………………………………………………………….29
1.11 Important……………………………………………………………………………..30
1.12 References……………………………………………………………………………30
1.13 Further reading…………………………………………………………………….…31
LECTURE TWO
2 .0 FUNCTINALISM…………………………………………………………………….32.
2.1 Introduction to functionalism……….……………………………………………………32
2.2 Lecture objectives……………………………………………………………………..…32
2.3 Key assumption and arguments of functionalism theories……………………………….33
2.4 Emile Durkheim and Functionalisms……………………………………………………..37
2.5 Talcott Parsons and Functionalism………………………………………………………..40

2
2.6 Robert Merton and Functionalism…………………………………………………….…42
2.7 Assessment and criticisms of Functionalism…………………………………………….43
2.8 Summary…………………………………………………………………………..…..….45
2.9 Self test questions………………………………………………………………..…….….46
2.10 Important………………………………………………………………………………...47
2.11 References……………………………………………………………………………….47
2.12 Further reading……………………………………………………………..……………47
LETURE THREE
3.0 CONFLICT THEORY…………………………………………………………………48.
3.1 Introductions to conflict theory…………………………………………………………..48
3.2 Lecture objectives………………………………………………………………………..49
3.3 Basic assumptions and arguments of the conflict perspective…………………………..49
3.4 Karl Marx………………………………………………………………………………..51
3.5 Ralf Dahrendorf…………………………………………………………………………57
3.6 Assessment and criticisms of Conflict theory…………………………………………..58
3.7 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..….59
3.8 Self test questions…………………………………………………………………….….60
3.9 Important………………………………………………………………………………...61
3.10 References……………………………………………………………………………….62
3.11 Further reading…………………………………………………………………..………62
3
LECTURE FOUR
4.0 SOCIAL ACTION THEORY……………………………………………………….…….63
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….63
4.2 Lecture objectives……………………………………………………………………………64
4.3 Max Weber……………………………………………………………….…………………..64
4.4 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..68
4.5 Self test questions………………………………………………………………..………..…68
4.6 References……………………………………………………………………..…………….69
4.7 Further reading……………………………………………………………………………….69
LECTURE FIVE
5.0 SYMBOLIC INTERATIONALISM………………………………………………………71
5.1 Introduction to symbolic interaction…………………………………………………………71
5.2 Lecture objectives…………………………………………………………………..………..72
5.3George Herbert Mead…………………………………………………………………..……72
5.4 Herbert Blummer…………………………………………………………………..……..…75
5.5 Ervin Goffman………………………………………………………………….……..……80
5.6 Summary……………………………………………………………………………….…….81
5.7 Self test questions………………………………………………………………………...….83
5.8 Important………………………………………………………………………………..…...83
5.9 References………………………………………………………………………………..….84
5.10 Further reading………………………………………………………………………….….84

4
LECTURE SIX
6.0 THEORIES OF RATIONAL CHOICE/EXCHAGE THEORY……………….…88.
6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…88
6.2 Lecture objectives……………………………………………………………………….89
6.4 George Homans…………………………………………………………………………89
6.5 Peter Blau…………………………………………………………………………….…90
6.6 James Colemal…………………………………………………………………………...91
6.7 Critique of social exchange theory………………………………………………………93
7.6 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..….96
7.8 Important………………………………………………………………………………...97
7.9 References………………………………………………………………………………98
7.10 Further reading…………………………………………………………………………99
5
LECTURE SEVEN
7.0 THE FEMINIST APPROACH………………………………………………………99…
7.1 Introduction to feminist theory…………………………………………………………99
7.2 Lecture objectives………………………………………………………………………100..
7.3 The feminist approach and functionalism………………………………………………100
7.4 The feminist approach and conflict…………………………………………………..…101
7.5 Critique of Feminist theory……………………………………………………………..104
7.6 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..….106
7.8 Important………………………………………………………………………………...107
7.9 References……………………………………………………………………………….108
7.10 Further reading………………………………………………………………………….108
GLOSSARY…………………………………………………………………………………109
6
INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY MODULE
Sociological activity in the United States from about World War I until recently de-emphasized
theory. Instructor and teacher and researcher were largely concerned with teaching or learning or
digging up factual information about this or that aspect of society, especially American society,
and were often prone to identify "theory" with philosophy and even idle speculation. Empirically
established facts, they sometimes seemed to say, speak for themselves and-if we gather enough
of them-their voices will constitute a sociological science. . But science demands more than
facts, more than careful description. Thus, as sociology matures, the former orientation is rapidly
being replaced by widespread recognition of the indispensability of theory. theoretical
considerations and theoretical concepts, implicitly or explicitly, have an essential role in shaping
the direction of research, in directing observation, in guiding description itself.
However, if theory is to be used wisely and with sharp awareness we require knowledge of its
nature and of its varieties. We need to know its concepts and the diverse terminological forms
they take, and, conversely, the different concepts that are frequently expressed by the same
terms. Moreover, we should be familiar with the history of sociological theoretical endeavor-
with its changing emphases, its successes and failures, its promise for the future. These questions
constitute the subject matter, of this volume.
OBJECTIVES OF THE MODULE:
To Familiarize the learners with the major social theories and enabled them to appreciate and
understand the use of theories in research and the management of sociological processes and
issues. The module attempts to guide the learners on the role of theory in understanding social
order, social behavior and social issues, in research and shaping social policy.
7
LECTURE ONE
1.0 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
1.11NTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Sociological theory is a set of assumptions, assertions, and propositions, organized in the form of
an explanation or interpretation, of the nature, form, or content of social action.
Social Action, according to Max Weber, is action that takes others into account. At the individual
or group level this refers to interpersonal influence: how people are affected by co-present others
or the expectations associated with generalized others, so that they dress, talk, and act in
predictable ways but social action also includes groups, organizations, and institutions, however,
and influence within and across these “levels of analysis”
1.2 LECTURE OBJECTIVES
By the end of this lecture, the learner will be able to

 Define sociological theory
 Know the characteristics of social theory
 Understand concepts related to social theory
 Know the relationship between the research and theory
 Understand the history of sociological theory
8
1.3 DEFINITION OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
In sociology, sociological theories are statements of how and why particular facts about the
social world are related. They range in scope from concise descriptions of a single social process
to paradigms for analysis and interpretation. Some sociological theories explain aspects of the
social world and enable prediction about future events, while others function as broad
perspectives which guide further sociological analyses.
Sociological theory is a set of assumptions, assertions, and propositions, organized in the form
of an explanation or interpretation, of the nature, form, or content of social action.
Social Action, according to Max Weber, is action that takes others into account. At the individual
or group level this refers to interpersonal influence: how people are affected by co-present others
or the expectations associated with generalized others, so that they dress, talk, and act in
predictable ways. But social action also includes groups, organizations, and institutions,
however, and influence within and across these “levels of analysis”
9
1.4 PURPOSE OF THEORY
Theory is not just any opining about human existence in society; it rather is an attempt at
formulating the meaning of existence by explicating the content of a definite class of
experiences. Its argument is not arbitrary but derives its validity from the aggregate of
experiences to which it must permanently refer for empirical control.
Aristotle was the first thinker to recognize this condition of theorizing about man. He coined a
term for the man whose character is formed by the aggregate of experiences in question, and he
called him the spoudaios, the mature man.The spoudaios is the man who has maximally
actualized the potentialities of human nature, who has formed his character into habitual
actualization of the dianoetic and ethical virtues, the man who at the fullest of his development is
capable of the bios theoretikos. Hence, the science of ethics in the Aristotelian sense is a type
study of the spoudaios.
Moreover, Aristotle was acutely aware of the practical corollaries of such a theory of man.
In the first place, theory cannot be developed under all conditions by everybody. The theorist
need perhaps not be a paragon of virtue himself, but he must, at least, be capable of imaginative
re-enactment of the experiences of which theory is an explication; and this faculty can be
developed only under certain conditions such as inclination, an economic basis that will allow
the investment of years of work into such studies, and a social environment that does not
suppress a man when he engages in them.
And, second, theory as an explication of certain experiences is intelligible only to those in whom
the explication will stir up parallel experiences as the empirical basis for testing the truth of
theory. Unless a theoretical exposition activates the corresponding experiences at least to a
10
degree, it will create the impression of empty talk or will perhaps be rejected as an irrelevant
expression of subjective opinions.
A theoretical debate can be conducted only among spoudaioi in the Aristotelian sense; theory has
no argument against a man who feels, or pretends to feel, unable of re-enacting the experience.
Historically, as a consequence, the discovery of theoretical truth may not at all find acceptance in
the surrounding society. Aristotle had no illusions on this point. To be sure, like Plato, he
attempted a paradigmatic construction of a social order that would express the truth of the
spoudaios, in Politics vii-viii; but he also asserted with firm regret that in none of the Hellenic
poleis of his time could there be found a hundred men who were able to form the ruling nucleus
of such a society; any attempt at realizing it would be utterly futile. A practical impasse seems to
be the result.
The Catalog of Experiences to be explicated
A study of the experiences is impossible in the present context. In view of the vastness of the
subject, even a lengthy sketch would be pitiably inadequate. No more than a brief catalogue can
be given that will appeal to your historical knowledge.
To the previously mentioned love of the sophon may now be added the variants of the Platonic
Eros toward the kalon and the agathon, as well as the Platonic Dike, the virtue of right super
ordination and subordination of the forces in the soul, in opposition to the sophistic
polypragmosyne; and, above all, there must be included the experience of Thanatos, of death as
the cathartic experience of the soul which purifies conduct by placing it into the longest of all
long-range perspectives, into the perspective of death.
Under the aspect of death the life of the philosophical man becomes for Plato the practice of
dying; the philosophers' souls are dead souls—in the sense of the Gorgias — and when the
philosopher speaks as the representative of truth, he does it with the authority of death over the
shortsightedness of life.
11
To the three fundamental forces of Thanatos, Eros, and Dike should be added, still within the
Platonic range, the experiences in which the inner dimension of the soul is given in height and
depth. The dimension in height is scaled through the mystical ascent, over the via negative,
toward the border of transcendence—the subject of the Symposion. The dimension in depth is
probed through the anamnesis descent into the unconscious, into the depth from where are drawn
up the "true logoi" of the Timaeus and Critias.
The discovery and exploration of these experiences started centuries before Plato and continued
after him. The Platonic descent into the depth of the soul, for instance, differentiated experiences
that were explored by Heraclitus and Aeschylus. And the name of Heraclitus reminds us that the
Ephesian had already discovered the triad of love, hope, and faith that reappeared in the
experiential triad of Saint Paul. For the via negative Plato could draw on the mysteries as well as
on the description of the way toward truth that Parmenides had given in his didactic poem. And
there should be mentioned, as close to the Platonic range, the Aristotelian philia, the experiential
nucleus of true community between mature men; and again the Aristotelian love of the noetic
self is hearkening back to the Heraclitean followership of the common Logos of mankind.
The Openness of the Soul as the New Authority
[The examples given] should be sufficient to evoke the class of experiences that form the basis of
theory in the Platonic-Aristotelian sense. It must now be ascertained why they should become the
carriers of a truth about human existence in rivalry with the truth of the older myth, and why the
theorist, as the representative of this truth, should be able to pit his authority against the authority
of society.
The answer to this question must be sought in the nature of the experience under discussion. The
discovery of the new truth is not an advancement of psychological knowledge in the immanentist
sense; one would rather have to say that the psyche itself is found as a new center in man at
which he experiences himself as open toward transcendental reality.
12
Moreover, this center is not found as if it were an object that had been present all the time and
only escaped notice. The psyche as the region in which transcendence is experienced must be
differentiated out of a more compact structure of the soul; it must be developed and named. With
due regard for the problem of compactness and differentiation, one might almost say that before
the discovery of the psyche man had no soul. Hence, it is a discovery that produces its
experiential material along with its explication; the openness of the soul is experienced through
the opening of the soul itself. This opening, which is as much action as it is passion, we owe to
the genius of the mystic philosophers.
These experiences become the source of a new authority. Through the opening of the soul the
philosopher finds himself in a new relation with God; he not only discovers his own psyche as
the instrument for experiencing transcendence but at the same time discovers the divinity in its
radically nonhuman transcendence.
Hence, the differentiation of the psyche is inseparable from a new truth about God. The true
order of the soul can become the standard for measuring both human types and types of social
order because it represents the truth about human existence on the border of transcendence. The
meaning of the anthropological principle must, therefore, be qualified by the understanding that
what becomes the instrument of social critique is, not an arbitrary idea of man as a world-
immanent being, but the idea of a man who has found his true nature through finding his true
relation to God. The new measure that is found for the critique of society is, indeed, not man
himself but man in so far as through the differentiation of his psyche he has become the
representative of divine truth.
13
.The Theological Principle
The anthropological principle, thus, must be supplemented by a second principle for the
theoretical interpretation of society. Plato expressed it when he created his formula "God is the
Measure," in opposition to the Protagorean "Man is the Measure."
In formulating this principle, Plato drew the sum of a long development. His ancestor Solon
already had been in search of the truth that could be imposed with authority on the factions of
Athens, and with a sigh he admitted, "It is very hard to know the unseen measure of right
judgment—and yet it alone contains the right boundaries of all things." As a statesman he lived
in the tension between the unseen measure and the necessity of incarnating it in the eunomia of
society; on the one hand: "The mind of the immortals is all unseen to men"; and on the other
hand: "At the behest of the gods have I done what I did."
Heraclitus, then, who always looms as the great shadow behind the ideas of Plato, went deeper
into the experiences leading toward the invisible measure. He recognized its overruling validity:
"The invisible harmony is better (or: greater, more powerful) than the visible." But this invisible
harmony is difficult to find, and it will not be found at all unless the soul be animated by an
anticipating urge in the right direction: "If you do not hope you will not find the unhoped-for,
since it is hard to be found and the way is all but impassable," and: "Through lack of faith
(apistie) the divine(?) escapes being known."
And, finally, Plato has absorbed the Xenophantic critique of unseemly symbolization of the gods.
As long as men create gods in their image, is the argument of Xenophanes, the true nature of the
one God who is "greatest among gods and men, not like mortals in body or thought," must
remain hidden; and only when the one God is understood in his formless transcendence as the
same God for every man will the nature of every man be understood as the same by virtue of the
sameness of his relation to the transcendent divinity. Of all the early Greek thinkers, Xenophanes
had perhaps the clearest insight into the constitution of a universal idea of man through the
experience of universal transcendence.
14
Receptivity for the Unseen Measure
The truth of man and the truth of God are inseparably one. Man will be in the truth of his
existence when he has opened his psyche to the truth of God; and the truth of God will become
manifest in history when it has formed the psyche of man into receptivity for the unseen
measure. This is the great subject of the Republic; at the center of the dialogue Plato placed the
Parable of the Cave, with its description of the periagoge, the conversion, the turning-around
from the untruth of human existence as it prevailed in the Athenian sophistic society to the truth
of the Idea.
Moreover, Plato understood that the best way of securing the truth of existence was proper
education from early childhood; for that reason, in Republic ii, he wanted to remove unseemly
symbolizations of the gods, as they were to be found in the poets, from the education of the
young and have them replaced by seemly symbols. On this occasion he developed the technical
vocabulary for dealing with such problems. In order to speak of the various types of
symbolization, he coined the term "theology" and called them types of theology, typoi peri
theologias.
On the same occasion Plato, furthermore, distinguished the gnoseological component of the
problem. If the soul is exposed in its youth to the wrong type of theology, it will be warped at its
decisive center where it knows about the nature of God; it will fall a prey to the "arch-lie," the
alethos pseudos, of misconception about the gods. This lie is not an ordinary lie in daily life for
which there may be extenuating circumstances; it is the supreme lie of "ignorance, of agnoia,
within the soul."
If now the Platonic terminology be adopted, one may say, therefore, that the anthropological
principle in a theoretical interpretation of society requires the theological principle as its
correlate. The validity of the standards developed by Plato and Aristotle depends on the
conception of a man who can be the measure of society because God is the measure of his soul.
15
1.5 IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL THEORY
1. Understanding Society
Just like chemistry tests information about the composition of chemical elements and physics
explains how magnets work, sociological theories have a distinct contribution to human
knowledge. Sociologists focus on how a society is structured, how each and every individual
works as part of the whole, how society has changed over the years and predictions of future
changes. In other words, sociological theories help people understand society and knowledge of
the world as it grows.
2. Decision Making
It is not possible to make decisions affecting a certain community without deep knowledge of its
structure, as miscalculated decisions can have a severe impact on people's lives.
Tackling a problem, such as high criminal rates, binge drinking and social segregation, requires
decision makers to know what exactly the problem is and its causes.
Sociological theories provide an insight on such issues, making it easier and safer for elected
representatives to find solutions to social problems.
3. Civic Competence
According to the National Council for the Social Studies, the primary purpose of social studies is
to promote civic competence. This means that through social studies, students get to learn how to
make informed and rational decisions on every issue, from participating in elections to settling
disputes with their neighbors. Sociological theories, which are part of the social studies
curriculum, help students to understand how society works and how they can be a useful part.
4. Determining Interdependent Aspects
An element characterizing society is interdependence. Individuals or organizations cannot

survive independently, while even seemingly dissimilar concepts, such as religion and the rise of
an economic system, can be closely connected, as Max Weber suggested in "The Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism." According to professor Craig Calhoun, sociological theories are
frameworks explaining how specific aspects of society are linked to larger processes.
16
1.6 CONCEPT RELATED TO SOCIAL THEORY
It will be noted that natural and social sciences have continued over a considerable period of time
to establish appropriate methods to be used to determine knowledge (development and validation
of concepts theories) with minimum misconceptions and biases including cultural constraints.
a) Positive Method
Comte advocated for positive method in social science theories in reference to approaches in
which ideas, concepts and related theories can be demonstrated with logical thought and/or
observation.
Durkheim emphasized the same approaches with the rules of the sociological method.
b) Methods of Science
It will be noted that sciences have embraced use of deduction (pure thought) method, induction
(experience) method and/or combined use of the two in development and validation of theories
and related research.
While deduction method emphasized use of logical set of concepts (logical thoughts) to develop
and validate theories, induction method emphasized use of observations (observed regularity of
conditions) to develop and validate theories.
Combined use of the two methods has been emphasized on the principle that logical conclusions
(thoughts) must be subjected to observation (i.e. empirical demonstration). Conversely, observed
conditions must be subjected to abstract logical conclusions in development and validation of
theories. It will be noted that these methods have been used alongside others that include
comparative historical method and historical materialism among others.
17
While deduction and induction methods date back to 500 BC, combined use of the two methods
(hypothetico-deduction method) became prominent in the early 1800s with the work of David
Hume and William Whewell on the philosophy of the inductive sciences (1840). It will be noted
that this approach proceeds by formulating hypotheses (through deductive method) that will be
verified with observable data; and vice versa. .
Along with the development of sciences, debate has persisted about which methodological
approach (deduction or induction?) will be more appropriate and correct for analyses and
conclusions in the advancement of knowledge
With the diagram below, it can be noted that while there have been extremes on both sides, there
has also been middle ground depending on a given set of issues to be addressed and prevailing
circumstances.
Deduction methodß-----<hypothetico-deduction method > àInduction method

(Rational method) (Empirical method)
(Also various versions of idealism)
It will be noted that over the years, deduction method evolved to encompass rationalism,
views/procedures that reason is the source of (or path to) knowledge, i.e. rational in conforming
to reason. Such views have been characterized by varied emphases from moderate position that
reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge to the more extreme position that
reason is the only path to knowledge
On the other hand, induction method evolved to encompass empiricism; views/procedures that
knowledge, ideas, concepts arise from sensory experience (not reason). Aristotle summarized
this principle with the expression that "nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu" (Latin for
"nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses").
In practice, over the years, while a wide range of notable scholars and practitioners have
developed, validated and revised their theories within the continuum of the two extremes, others
have placed more emphasis on deduction and others have placed more emphasis on induction.
18
Both deduction and induction methods and related operational procedures have been traced to
ancient civilizations and philosophy. It has been argued that Edwin Smith Papyrus (1600 BC)
indicated use of induction; applied to examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the
treatment of diseases.
Lloyd (1933) argued that this procedure indicated a strong parallel to the basic empirical method
of science and played a significant role in the development of this methodology.However, it is
widely acknowledged that Thales (624–546 BC) was the first philosopher to reject supernatural,
religious or mythological ways to explain natural conditions and/or challenges; proclaiming that
every condition/ event had a natural cause.
More importantly, he is considered to be the first to use deduction and induction methods applied
to geometry to derive the Thale Theorem. Considered founder of the western philosophy, Thales
attempted to explain earthquakes with the hypothesis that the earth floats on water; and that
earthquakes occurred when the Earth is rocked by waves. It has been noted that subsequently a
wide range of philosophers/scholars applied induction methods in pursued of knowledge.
Anaxagoras (500–428 BC) who promoted philosophy and the spirit of scientific inquiry used
induction method to observe celestial bodies and the fall of meteorites that led him to consider
new theories on the order of the universe. Accordingly, it has been acknowledged that Thale and
some of his contemporaries laid a foundation for induction method that came to be adapted by
notable scholars that included Copernicus (1473–1543), Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and Galileo
(1564 –1642), among others. Copernicus was credited with the re-invention of science,
advancing heliocentric theory of the universe and establishment of the modern astronomy. With
extensive use of the induction method, he demonstrated that the sun was at the centre of the solar
system and which explained observed motions of celestial objects.
With experiment and observation in astronomy, Galileo has been considered the founder of the
modern science. He used telescope observation to discover some of the planets and four (4)
satellites (moons) of the Jupiter that created a revolution in astronomy to the present day. The
remarkable observation was that a planet with smaller planets orbiting it did not conform to the
theoretical views of Aristotle on the cosmos (universe).
19
C Deduction/rational methods
It is also acknowledged that Pythagoras (570-490 BC) used deductive method to establish the
Pythagorean Theorem and influenced a number of later scholars including Plato (427-347 BC).
Later Plato held a view that the only things that exist truly are ideas, and the phenomenal world
is nothing but copies of the world of ideas. Accordingly, knowledge of the ideas is indeed true
knowledge. With this assertion, Pythagoras and Plato laid the foundation for deduction method
that came all the way to Berkeley, Descartes, Kant, Georg Simmel and Max Weber to the
modern times with various versions and emphases.
In view of this assertion, Plato emphasized that pursued of knowledge should be directed to the
relationships between ideas and the structure of ideas, from upper to the lower through the
division of the generic concepts into specific concepts; or from the lower to the upper through
synthesizing the concepts of individual things, aiming at the supreme concept.
While Plato advocated deduction (or rational) method from a priori principle (before the
experience), Aristotle (384–322 BC) advocated use of logical proof based on the deduction
method to establish true knowledge. He held a view that the deductive method, in which the
particulars are deduced from the universal, was a more correct approach to determine
knowledge. However, Aristotle recognized the inductive method where one proceeds from the
particular to the universal but considered such method to be less than perfect.
Indeed, Aristotle has been acknowledged for a wide range of initiatives including the earliest
study of formal logic with the use of principles that became dominant until the advancement of
mathematical logic in 19th century. Later, Kant stated that the logical framework by Aristotle
accounted for the core of deductive reasoning. It is also noted that while he emphasized
deductive method, Aristotle reconciled abstract thought with observation in many instances.
Later René Descartes (1596–1650) published the Discourse on the Method in 1637 entitled
Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the
Sciences that became one of the most influential works in the history of modern philosophy;
20
particularly in the evolution of natural sciences. With this remarkable initiative, Descartes
reformulated and popularized modern deductive method, emphasized the use of reason to
develop the natural sciences, became a major proponent of rationalism in Europe; later advocated
by Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646 -1716).
Berkeley (1685-1753) sometimes known as the "father of idealism” advocated one of the purest
forms of idealism (a version of deductive method) in 1700s and argued that objects exist only
as perception and not matters separate from perception. He argued that our knowledge must be
based on our perceptions and that there was no "real" knowable object except perception. With
this assertion, varied versions of idealism have co-existed with varied versions of deduction
method.
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant (1724–1804) criticized pure reason as emphasized by Plato
and later Berkeley and proposed to restrict reasoning to only objects with possible experience in
response to Hume advocacy. Indeed, he sought to bridge deduction and a version of
induction/empiricism that had emerged in Europe in 1600/1700s.
Kant held a view that mind plays a central role in influencing the way the world is experienced
and that objects are perceived through time, space and the categories of the understanding.
Accordingly, he proposed that while we could know particular objects about the world, only
through sensory experience that we could know the form the objects must take prior to any
experience.
It will be noted that Kant was a remarkable philosopher of his time. In his General History of
Nature and Theory of the Heavens (1755), Kant laid out the Nebular hypothesis in which he
deduced that the solar system emerged from a large cloud of gas, a nebula.
He also deduced, correctly, that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars formed from a (much
larger) spinning cloud of gas. He predicted further the possibility that other nebulae might also
be similarly large and distant disks of stars. It has been acknowledged that these perspectives
expanded horizons in astronomy beyond the solar system to galactic and extragalactic realms
Largely as a response to the Kant’s perspectives, deduction method was reformulated in

Germany in 1700s/1800s to reject restricting reasoning to only objects of possible experience (a
21
version of Kant) and to incorporate modified versions of pure idealism (Berkeley) with views
that ideas or thoughts made up the reality; i.e. the only thing actually knowable is consciousness
(or the contents of consciousness). It will be noted that this is the background that came to
influence the social science and methods of George Simmel and Max Weber; or German
Sociologists.
d) Induction/empirical methods
Following the tradition of Thales and Copernicus, Francis Bacon (1561–1626) re-established and
popularized inductive method and related operational procedures; and has been referred to as the
father of modern induction and empiricism.
Bacon argued that although philosophy used mainly deductive syllogisms at that time to interpret
nature in the tradition of Aristotle's logic, philosophers and scientists should instead proceed
through inductive reasoning; i.e. from fact (experience) to axiom to physical law
It will be noted that the views of Bacon precipitated a considerable movement that advocated
induction/empiricism leading to a school of thought that came to be known as British empiricism
(opposed to rationalism school of thought) with leading proponents at successive time in 1600s
and 1700s that included John Locke (1632 –1704)and David Hume (1711 –1776).
It will be recalled that Hume was a philosopher and social scientist that was particularly
instrumental in re-establishment of induction/empiricism. He held a view that human powers of
reasoning are uncertain and defective. Accordingly, he opposed the deduction method of Plato
and Descartes and influenced Kant on the importance of induction/empiricism.
In A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), he argued that “all the sciences have a relation, more or
less, to human nature. Even Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, are in some
measure dependent on the science of Man".
He argued further that "the science of man is the only solid foundation for the other sciences"
and the method for this science is “experience and observation" as the foundations of a logical
22
argument.” It is generally agreed that Hume wanted was to develop a science of human nature
based on observable fact and careful argument.
However, that "science of man" extended well beyond the individual mind, into fundamental
questions about morals, society, political and economic behavior, and religious belief.
Accordingly, he paved the way for cognitive science; an interdisciplinary enterprise combining
philosophy, psychology and artificial intelligence
With this perspectives and views, Hume laid the foundation for the emergence of logical
positivism; a science based on verification principle (doctrine) that any statement, object or
perception must be verified by experience.
Whereas it is a common practice at the present time, the combined use of deduction and
induction (or hypothetico-deduction method) has been credited to William Whewell (1794–
1866) with his history of the inductive sciences (1837) and the philosophy of the inductive
sciences (1840)
This approach proceeds by formulating hypotheses (through deductive method) that will be
verified with observable data; or vice versa. It will be noted that while he adopted essentially
Thale- Copernicus-Bacon-Hume and Comte positive method, Durkheim emphasized
hypothetico-deduction method in providing the rules of sociological theory and method.
In summary, the point of contestation has been that theories should be developed and
validated through documented facts, reliable and valid demonstrations with verifiable
methods.
Expected causal relation (and therefore explanation) must be based on factual and demonstrated
conditions, events and or characteristics; without reference to conditions that cannot be
demonstrated .
23
e) Methods for Sociological Theory and Research
As indicated the positive method, a way of understanding based on science, emphasized by

Comte involved use of either deduction, induction, or combed use of the two with a view that
such methods will make it possible to address issues and challenges in the societies in ways that
can be documented, demonstrated, verified, and necessary correction made.
More importantly, it was envisaged that these methods and related operational procedures will
have in-built self-correction mechanisms where misconceptions and errors are filtered out over
time.
It will be recalled that Comte outlined development of social thoughts to consist of three phases
(1) The theological thoughts,
(2) The metaphysical thoughts, and
(3) The positive thoughts and validation.
He rejected the other two and emphasized the importance of positive theory and method;
emphasizing the capability for verification and self correction mechanisms (a principle that can
be traced to Thales and Democritus among others).
It will be noted that Comte argued that different sciences passed through the three phases at
different time period and that the discipline of astronomy was the first to reach the positive phase
followed by physics, chemistry and biology.
He therefore called for establishment of a science for human societies based positive theory and
method. Durkheim pursued the principles of Comte and established sociology based on positive
method and emphasized the principle of social fact as any condition in the societies that exert
external constraint (or reality) over the individuals. According to Durkheim such conditions
constituted the subject matter for sociology to be studied in objective, reliable and valid ways.
24
In view of this rule, misconceptions and/or preconditions must be controlled or eliminated.
As indicated, the thoughts and methods of Georg Simmel and Max Weber were influenced
substantially by neo-Kant Philosophy that embraced deduction with German idealism and
induction with emphasis on empiricism (demonstration with verifiable observations).
More specifically, Kant criticized pure reason (thought) and proposed to restrict reasoning to
objects supported by experience (empirical validation). It was against this background that
Weber advocated a science that should seek to understand actions, relations and organizations in
the societies with a view to explain their causes and effects; by use of ideal (pure) types and then
generalized observable regularities and uniformities.
1.7 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESEARCH AND

THEORY
The close connection between theory and research was implied in the discussion of their
functions. Stated explicitly, the initial impetus for research is the search for theory. Theory
development relies on research, and research relies on theory. Brown (1977) characterized the
relationship between theory and research as dialectic, a transaction whereby theory determines
what data are to be collected and research findings provide challenges to accepted theories.
Research, then, is neither more nor less than the vehicle for theory development. It is the method
used to gather the data needed for the theory.This is true whether the purpose of the research is to
generate a theory or to test one. When the purpose is theory generation, the phenomenon of
interest suggests things to look for. For example, if a theory of clients' perceptions of factors
influencing their adherence to a nursing care plan were to be generated, one source of data would
25
be clients' perceptions of why they were willing and able to follow the care plan.Conversely, if
the purpose is theory testing, the theory dictates the data to
be collected. For example, if a theory proposes that emotional support provided by spouses is the
best predictor of clients' adherence to nursing care plans, then the data to be collected include the
extent of emotional support provided by spouses and the extent to which clients adhere to care
plans.
Types of Theory and Research
The relationship between theory and research can be further explained by exploring the research
designs
used to develop various types of theories. Theories generally are classified as descriptive,
[relational], or [explanatory]. The research designs that generate and test these types of theories
are, respectively; descriptive, correlation, and experimental.
Descriptive Theory and Descriptive Research. Descriptive theories are the most basic type of
theory. They describe or classify specific dimensions or characteristics of individuals, groups,
situations, or events by summarizing the commonalities found in discrete observations. They
state "what is." Descriptive theories are needed when nothing or very little is known about the
phenomenon in question.
There are two categories of descriptive theory - naming and classification (Stevens, 1984). A
naming theory is a description of the dimensions or characteristics of some phenomenon. A
classification theory is more elaborate in that it states that the dimensions or characteristics of a
given phenomenon are structurally interrelated. The dimensions may be mutually exclusive,
overlapping, hierarchical, or sequential. Classification theories frequently are referred to as
typologies or taxonomies.
Descriptive theories are generated and tested by descriptive research. This type of research is
also called research. It is directed toward answering questions such as: What is this? (Diers,
1979, p. 103) What are the existing characteristics of the real world relative to the specific
question? (Payton, 1979,p.44) Descriptive research may or may not use an empirical method.
NonempiricaI methods include philosophic and historic inquiries.
26
1.7 HISTORY OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY: THE FOUNDING
FATHERS
It will be noted that for a considerable period of time, efforts have been directed to explanation,
prediction and intervention based on demonstrated casual relation on a wide range of
aspects/challenges.
The discipline of sociology was established in the early 1800s as the science of the human
societies; particularly organizations, structures, institutions, related division of labour, resulting
conditions and challenges. It will be noted that this was inspired largely by remarkable progress
made in physical and biological sciences
It will also be noted that sociology is one of the social sciences that include psychology,
anthropology, economics and political science among others that have origins in ancient
philosophy and science that can be traced to Thales, Democritus, Plato and Aristotle among
others.
Thales gave the earliest rules of physical sciences and attempted to explain and to predict the
earthquake. Democritus provided the earliest theory of atom and Plato gave attention to the study
of ethics in the societies. Galileo supported the view that the earth orbited the sun and not the
other way.
An early and formal form of social theory was advanced by Ibn Khaldoun in 1377 in respect to
conflict in the societies and cycle of civilizations where societies become advanced, reaching
high point, followed by a period of decay and replacement by a more cohesive groups and/or
societies. He also proposed that: “When a population of a civilization increases, the available
labor also increases”
27
It is acknowledged that the term sociology [derived from Latin] was used in mid 1700s by
Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes (1748-1836), a composer and one of the principal theorists of the
French Revolution, to explain human associations and/or social contracts. It will be recalled that
Sieyes was one of the first members of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences in France.
However, Auguste Comte (1798-1857) called for establishment of sociology as a science of the
human societies in 1838 based on positive method, rules and principles applied in the natural
sciences. Positive method was considered to be essential and critical in order to address issues
and challenges in the societies in ways that can be documented, verified, and demonstrated.
With emphasis on the importance of such science, Comte made a fundamental influence on the
work of John Stuart Mill, (1806-1873), Karl Marx, (1818-1883), Herbert Spencer (1820-1903),
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and Max Weber (1864-1920) among others.
Based on the same views, Mill made substantial contribution to social theory, political theory,
and political economy. Mill has been credited with the principle of negation in scientific
methodology with his effort to resolve and/or remedy the problems related to confirmation of
misconceptions and biases.
Spencer, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber among others made more fundamental contributions to the
establishment of sociology as a science of human societies in 19th and 20th centuries. More
specifically, Durkheim pursued the thoughts of Comte and established sociology with emphasis
on positive method
28
1.8 SUMMARY
A sociological theory is a set of ideas that provides an explanation for human society. Theories
are selective in terms of their priorities and perspectives and the data they define as significant.
As a result they provide a particular and partial view of reality. Sociological theories can be
grouped together according to a variety of criteria. The most important of these is the distinction
between Structural and Social action theories.

Structural, or macro perspectives analyses the way society as a whole fits together. Structural
theory sees society as a system of relationships that creates the structure of the society in which
we live. It is this structure that determines our lives and characters. Structured sets of social
relationships are the 'reality' that lie below the appearance of 'the free individual' of western
individualism. Structuralism focuses on the particular set of 'structural laws' that apply in any one
society.

Despite their differences, both functionalism and Marxism use a model of how society as a
whole works. Many functionalists base their model of society around the assumption of basic
needs and go to explain how different parts of society help to meet those needs. Marxists, on the
other hand, see society as resting upon an economic base or infrastructure, with a superstructure
above it. They see society as divided into social classes which have the potential to be in conflict
with each other.

However, the main differences between functionalist and Marxist perspectives then, is the way
they characterize the social structure. Functionalists stress the extent to which the different
elements of the social structure fit together harmoniously. Marxists stress the lack of fit between
the different parts, particularly social classes, and so emphasize the potential for social conflict.

29
Not all sociological perspectives base their analysis upon an examination of the structure of
society as a whole. Rather than seeing human behaviour as being largely determined by society,
they see society as being the product of human activity. They stress the meaningfulness of
human behaviour, denying that it is primarily determined by the structure of society. These
approaches are known as social action theory, interpretive sociology or micro sociology.

Max Weber was the first sociologist to advocate a social action approach. Symbolic
integrationists try to explain human behaviour and human society by examining the ways in
which people interpret the actions of others, develop a self-concept or self-image, and act in
terms of meanings. Ethno methodology moves even further from a structural approach by
denying the existence of a social structure as such. They see the social world as consisting of the
definitions and categorizations of members of society. The job of the sociologist, in their view, is
to interpret, describe and understand the subjective reality.

Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry
that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and a
critique of capitalism. Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid-19th century by two German
philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism encompasses Marxian economic theory,
a sociological theory and a revolutionary view of social change that has greatly influenced
socialist political movements worldwide.
30
1.9 SELF TEST QUESTIONS
a. Define sociological theory

b. Mention the characteristics of social theory
c. Discuss the concepts related to social theory
d. What is the relationship between the research and theory?
e. Explain the history of sociological theory
1.10 FURTHER READING
 Adams, B. N., & Sydie, R. A. (2001). Sociological Theory. Pine Forge Press.
 Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., & Jones, P. (2002). Introductory sociology. Palgrave Macmillan.
ISBN 0-333-94571-9
 Babbie, E. R. (2003). The Practice of Social Research: 10th edition. Wadsworth:

Thomson Learning Inc. ISBN 0-534-62029-9
 Gerber, Linda. M. & Macionis, John. J. (2011). Sociology, Seventh Canadian Edition.
Pearson Education, ISBN 978-0-13-700161-3
 Goodman, D. J., & Ritzer, G. (2004). Sociological Theory, Sixth Edition. McGraw Hill
 Hughes, M., Kroehler, C. J., & Vander Zanden, J. W. (2001). Sociology: The Core.
McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-240535-X Online chapter summary
 Germov, J. (2001). '"A Class Above the Rest? Education and the Reproduction of Class
Inequality'". In J. Allen (Ed.), Sociology of education: possibilities and practices
(pp. 233–248). Tuggerah, NSW: Social Science Press. ISBN 1-876633-23-
31
1.11 REFERENCES
1. Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto,
Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc. p. 199.
2. McCann Doug, Weiten, Wayne (2010). Psychology themes & variations 2nd
Canadian Ed. United States of America: Nelson Education Ltd. p. 614.
Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc. pp. 198–199.
Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc. p. 206.
5. Macionis and Gerber, John J. and Linda M. (2010). Sociology, the 7th Canadian
Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 206.
ISBN 978-0-13-700161-3.
Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc. pp. 208, 209.
32
LECTURE TWO
2 .0 FUNCTINALISM
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO FUNCTIONALISM
Although popular, even dominant, after World War II, structural functionalism is today generally
of only historical interest. Emerging as an offshoot of organisms, structural functionalists were
mainly societal functionalists who were interested in large-scale social structures and institutions
within society, how they interrelate, and their constraining effects on actors.
One of the earliest and better known applications of structural functionalism was the functional
theory of stratification. This theory argued that stratification was universal and necessary for
society, and that it was therefore functional. Stratification here refers to positions rather than
individuals and to the way that individuals are placed in the appropriate position. Since some
positions are more important, more pleasant, and require different skills, a system of
stratification is necessary to make sure all roles are fulfilled. Much like other versions of
structural functionalism, this theory is criticized as conservative and lacking in empirical support.

By the end of this lecture, the leaner will be able to
 Understand the assumptions and arguments of functionalism theories
 Know Emile Durkheim’s perspectives on Functionalisms
 Know Talcott Parsons perspectives on Functionalism

33
 Know Robert Merton‘s perspectives on Functionalism
 Be aware of Assessment and criticisms of Functionalism
2.3 KEY ASSUMPTION AND ARGUMENTS OF FUNCTIONALISM

THEORIES
Societies and social units have order and interdependent parts like a biological organism held
together by cooperation and orderliness. Societies and social units work toward the natural or
smooth working of the system,ie towards equilibrium Societies and social units,just as
natural(external) environments , are separate or distinct but adapt to each other-if one or more
parts conflict with others, others must adapt.
Many arguments for functionalism depend on the actuality or possibility of systems that have
mental states but that are either physically or behaviorally distinct from human beings. These
arguments are mainly negative arguments that aim to show that the alternatives to functionalism
are unacceptable. For example, behaviorists famously held that psychological states are not
internal states at all, whether physical or psychical. But, the argument goes, it is easy to imagine
two creatures that are behaviorally indistinguishable and that differ in their mental states. This
line of reasoning is one of a family of “perfect actor” or “doppelganger” arguments, which are
common fare in philosophy of mind:
1. If behaviorism is true, it is not possible for there to be a perfect actor or doppelganger who
behaves just like me but has different mental states or none at all.
2. But it is possible for there to be a perfect actor or doppelganger who behaves just like me but
has different mental states or none at all.
3. Therefore, behaviorism is not true. (by modus tollens)
34
In a well-known version of this argument, one imagines that there could be “Super-Spartans”
who never exhibit pain behavior (such as flinching, saying “ouch”) or even any dispositions to
produce pain behavior (Putnam 1963).
The most famous arguments for functionalism are responses not to behaviorism but to the mind-
brain identity theory. According to the identity theory, “sensations are brain processes” (Smart
1959). If mental state kinds are (identical to) kinds of brain states, then there is a one-to-one
relation between mental state kinds and brain state kinds. Everything that has sensation S must
have brain state B, and everything that has brain state B must have sensation S. Not only that, but
this one-to-one correlation must not be accidental. It must be a law of nature, at least, and
perhaps must hold with an even stronger sort of necessity. Put this way, the mind-brain identity
theory seems to make a very strong claim, indeed. As Hilary Putnam notes,
the physical-chemical state in question must be a possible state of a mammalian brain, a reptilian
brain, a mollusc’s brain (octopuses are mollusk, and certainly feel pain), etc. At the same time, it
must not be a possible (physically possible) state of the brain of any physically possible creature
that cannot feel pain. Even if such a state can be found, it must be nomologically certain that it
will also be a state of the brain of any extraterrestrial life that may be found that will be capable
of feeling pain before we can even entertain the supposition that it may be pain. (Putnam 1967:
436)
The obvious implication is that the mind-brain identity theory is false. Other mammals, reptiles,
and mollusks can experience pain, but they do not have brains like ours. It seems to follow that
there is not a one-to-one relation between sensations and brain processes, but rather a one-to-
many relation. Mental states, then, are not uniquely realized (as the identity theory requires);
they are instead multiply realized.
And even if (by chance) it turns out that mammals, reptiles, and mollusks all have similar brains
(so that in fact there is a one-to-one correlation), certainly one can recognize the possibility that
it might be discovered that terrestrial or extraterrestrial creatures who experience pains but do not
have brains like those of human beings.
35
So it is surely not necessary that there is a one-to-one relation between mental state kinds and
brain states kinds, but that is exactly what the identity theory would require. This is bad news for
the identity theory, but it is good news for functionalism. For functionalism says that what makes
something a mental state is what it does, and it is fully compatible with the diverse brains of
mammals, reptiles, and mollusks that they all have mental states because their different brains do
the same things, that is, they function in the same ways. Functionalism is supported because it is
a theory of mind that is compatible with the likely degree of multiple realization of mental states.
Another pair of arguments for functionalism are what can be called the Optimistic and
Pessimistic Arguments. The optimistic argument leans on the possibility of building artificial
minds. The Optimistic Argument holds that even if no one ever discovers a creature that has
mental states but differs from humans in its brain states, surely one could build such a thing. That
is, the possibility of artificial intelligence seems to require the truth of something like
functionalism.
Functionalism views the mind very much as an engineer does: minds are mechanisms, and there
is usually more than one way to build a mechanism. The Optimistic Argument, then, is a
variation on the multiple realization argument discussed above; but this version does not depend
on empirical facts about how our world is in fact, as the multiple realization argument does.
The Pessimistic Argument claims that the alternatives to functionalism would leave people
unable to know about and explain the mental states of one another, or of other creatures. After
all, if two creatures function in the same ways, achieve the same results, have isomorphic
internal states, etc., then what could justify the claim that one has mental states and the other
does not?
The identity theory says that the justification has to do with what kinds of stuff the creatures are
made of—only the one with the right kind of brain counts as having mental states. But this flies
in the face of our ordinary practices of understanding, attributing, and explaining mental states. If
someone says, “I am in pain,” or “I believe that it is sunny outside,” one doesn’t have to cut the
speaker open and find out whether they have a human brain in order to know that they have a
pain or a belief. One knows that because the speaker not only produce those noises (as the
36
behaviorist might say), but because they have internal states that function in certain ways. One
can test this, as psychologists often do, by running experiments in a laboratory or, as ordinary
people do, by asking questions and observing replies.
That is, we can find out how the systems function. And if functionalism is correct, that is all we
need to know in order to have knowledge of other minds. But if the identity theory is correct,
then those methods are at best heuristics, and the observer may yet be wrong. One cannot know
for certain that the speaker has pains or beliefs unless one knows what kind of brain the speaker
has. Without knowing about brains, we can only infer that others have beliefs on the basis of the
behavioral symptoms they exhibit, and we already know (see above, regarding behaviorism and
Super-Spartans) that those can lead us astray. But that is crazy, the argument goes, and if one
really believed it then (given that in general one doesn’t know what kinds of brains other people
have) nobody would be justified in believing anything about the beliefs of other people and
creatures . And that is crazy.
The trouble with the Optimistic Argument is that it is question-begging. It assumes that one can
create artificial thinking things without duplicating the kinds of brain states that human beings
have, and that is just what the identity theory denies. The trouble with the Pessimistic Argument
is that it seems to exploits a very high standard for knowledge of other minds — namely
infallibility or certainty. The objection gets its grip only if the requirement to infer facts about
others minds does undermine the possibility of knowledge about those minds. But we regularly
acquire knowledge by inference or induction, and there is no special reason to think that
inferences about minds are more problematic than other inferences.
The multiple realization argument is much more nuanced. Its interpretation is a matter of some
dispute. Although there has been increasing resistance to the argument lately, it remains the most
influential reason for favoring functionalism over the alternatives. And even if the multiple
realization argument is unsound, that result would only undermine one argument for
functionalism and not the thesis itself.
The next two sections will consider two objections to functionalism that aim to show that the
theory is untenable. Both objections assume that mental states are, as the functionalist insists,
37
multiply realizable. The objections try to show that because of its commitment to multiple
realization, functionalism must accept certain unpalatable consequences. The conclusion of each
argument is that functionalism is false.
2.4 EMILE DURKHEIM AND FUNCTIONALISMS
Division of labour, social organization and problems
We have mentioned that Durkheim established the disciple of sociology and expanded the rules
of the positive method. We have indicated that while he adopted essentially Thale-Galileo-
Bacon-Hume and Comte positive method, Durkheim emphasized hypothetical-deduction method
in providing the rules of sociological theory and method.
Durkheim and later proponents outlined a perspective of a causal relation consisting of

population density, technology, differentiation and specialization, division of labour, social
structure and institutions, cohesion, varied levels of cohesion and social problems.
It will be noted that the concept of the division of labour has been given considerable attention in
the development of social thoughts. In his Republic, Plato argued that the State needed “a farmer,
a builder, a weaver, a shoemaker and one or two others to provide for our requirements”.
In the 1300s AD, Ibn Khaldoun emphasised the importance of the division of labour in the
production process and stated that” the power of the individual human being was not sufficient
for his/her requirements. Thus, he/she cannot do without a combination of many powers from
among his fellow beings Through cooperation, the needs of a number of persons, many times
greater than their own number, can be satisfied”..
In 1739 David Hume asserted that “when every individual person labours a-part, and only for
himself, his force is too small to execute any considerable work. By the conjunction of forces,
38
our power is augmented: By the partition of employments, our ability increases. It is through this
additional force, ability, and security, that societies become advantageous”.
In his Wealth of the Nations, in 1776, Adam Smith observed that "the greatest improvements in
the productive powers of labour, and the greatest part of the skill, dexterity, and judgement with
which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.
According to Smith division of labour represented a qualitative increase in productivity and
resulted in a proportional increase in the productive powers of labour.
More than a century later, Durkheim observed in 1893 that economists upheld the division of
labor not only as necessary but as "the supreme law of human societies and their conditions of
progress”. He observed that “greater concentrations of productive forces and capital investment
led to modern industry, business, and agriculture with greater specialization and separation of
occupations, and even greater interdependence among the products”.
Accordingly, Durkheim held a view that all societies maintained varied levels of the division of
labour and was related to varied levels of development. While his view on the positive effects of
the division of labour was similar to that of Adam Smith, Durkheim differed on the scope. He
held a view that the law of the division of labor applied generally to all “biological organisms”
and therefore a natural law while Smith believed this law applied “only to human societies.”
With this view, Durkheim provided division of labour (DOL) as a sociological theory that can be
used to explain and to predict varied conditions in the human societies. He outlined a causal
relation that consisted of population density, technology, differentiation and specialization,
division of labour, social structure and institutions, cohesion, varied levels of cohesion and social
problems.
Durkheim argued that reduced physical / spatial distance (by physical means that included
growth of the population and/or advancement in technology that included communication and
transportation) between members of the societies led to increased dynamic or moral density that
increased in direct proportion to the division of labour; reinforced by "social volume" of a
society (the total number of members). Accordingly, the division of labor in the societies became
39
a mechanism that reinforced interdependency, varied social structure, mutual relationships and
social solidarity in the societies.
Durkheim argued that division of labour involved a progression from mechanical solidarity
(social integration based on homogeneity, similar work, educational and religious orientation) to
organic solidarity (social integration based on specialization and interdependence). In principle
all societies have witnessed division of labour that involved progression from mechanical
solidarity to organic solidarity at varied rates accompanied by varied levels of anomie (structural
mechanisms for normative regulations/control of individuals in the societies). In this perspective,
a wide range of problems in the societies was associated directly with reduced or low structural
mechanisms for control or support to individuals
Durkheim observed that pre-industrial societies maintained their social solidarity through
mechanistic solidarity people were generalists in their work (farming and creating their own
tools); and transformation to industrial societies was accompanied by specialization and
expanded array of dissimilar occupations with varied levels of anomie (structural mechanisms
for regulations/control of individuals members).
Durkheim and later proponents cited the example of modern cities where large and highly
condensed populations can coexist peacefully as a consequence of occupational differentiation:
"The soldier seeks military glory, the priest moral authority, the statesman power, the
businessman riches, the scholar scientific renown. Each one can attain his/her end without
preventing the others from obtaining theirs"
Durkheim carried-out the study of suicide with a view to demonstrate and to validate the theory
of the division of labour and varied levels of social integration (cohesion) in the societies.
40
2.5 TALCOTT PARSONS AND FUNCTIONALISM
Talcott Parsons
The single greatest contributor, and practitioner, of structural functionalism was Talcott Parsons
(1902-1979). The heart of Parsons's theory is built on the four functional imperatives, also
known as the AGIL system:
1. The adaptive function, whereby a system adapts to its environment.
2. The goal-attainment function, i.e., how a system defines and achieves its goals.
3. The integrative function, or the regulation of the components of the system.
4. Latency, or pattern maintenance function, i.e., how motivation and the dimensions of
culture that create and sustain motivation are stimulated.
Complementing this are four action systems, each of which serve a functional imperative: the
behavioral organism performs the adaptive function; the personality system performs goal
attainment; the social system performs the integrative function; and the cultural system performs
pattern maintenance. Parsons saw these action systems acting at different levels of analysis,
starting with the behavioral organism and building to the cultural system. He saw these levels
hierarchically, with each of the lower levels providing the impetus for the higher levels, with the
higher levels controlling the lower levels.
Parsons was concerned primarily with the creation of social order, and he investigated it using
his theory based on a number of assumptions, primarily that systems are interdependent; they
tend towards equilibrium; they may be either static or involved in change; that allocation and
integration are particularly important to systems in any particular point of equilibrium; and that
41
systems are self-maintaining. These assumptions led him to focus primarily on order but to
overlook, for the most part, the issue of change.
The basic unit of Parsons's social system is the status-role complex. Actors are seen as a
collection of statuses and roles relatively devoid of thought. Parsons's interest was in the large-
scale components of social systems, such as collectivities, norms, and values. Parsons also
thought that social systems had a number of functional prerequisites, such as compatibility with
other systems, fulfillment of the needs of actors, support from other systems, inducing adequate
levels of participation from its members, controlling deviance, controlling conflict, and language.
Parsons was particularly interested in the role of norms and values. He focused on the
socialization process, whereby society instills within individuals an outlook in which it is
possible for them to pursue their own self-interest while still serving the interests of the system
as a whole. It was through socialization that Parsons believed that actors internalized the norms
of society. Physical or coercive systems of control were seen as only a secondary line of defense.
The cultural system is at the very pinnacle of action systems. For instance, Parsons believed that
culture had the capability of becoming a part of other systems, such as norms and values in the
social system. Culture is defined as a patterned, ordered system of symbols that are objects of
orientation to actors, internalized aspects of the personality system, and institutionalized patterns.
The symbolic nature of culture allows it to control other action systems.
The personality system generates personality, defined as the organized orientation and
motivation of action in the individual actor, built by need-dispositions and shaped by the social
setting. Again Parsons presents a passive view of actors.
In order to deal with change, Parsons turned to a form of evolutionary theory, focusing on
differentiation and adaptive upgrading. He suggested three evolutionary stages: primitive,
intermediate, and modern. This perspective suffers from a number of flaws, primarily because it
sees change as generally positive and does not deal with the process of change, but rather points
of equilibrium across periods of change.
One way that Parsons does inject a real sense of dynamism into his theory is with the concept of
the generalized media of interchange. Although this concept is somewhat ambiguous, it can be
42
thought of as resources, particularly symbolic resources, for which there is a universal desire
(e.g., money, influence, or political power).
2.6 ROBERT MERTON AND FUNCTIONALISM
Robert Merton
Robert Merton (1910-2003) attempted to rectify some of the weaknesses within structural
functionalism. Specifically, he criticized the underlying assumptions of functionalism and added
complexity to how structural functionalism dealt with the relationship between structures and
functions. Dispensing with the notion that all parts of the system are functional, highly
integrated, and indispensable, he created a system of concepts to deal with the ways in which
structures may be related to the whole. For instance, he suggested that some social facts might be
dysfunctional, meaning they may have negative consequences for other social facts.
Overall, he thought that it was possible to have an idea of the balance of a structure by taking
into account dysfunctions, functions, and nonfunctions. He also added additional complexity by
asserting that this sort of analysis may be performed at various levels of functional analysis, as
"functions" might be a matter of perspective. For instance, slavery was functional for some and
dysfunctional for others.
Merton was also concerned with the intended and unintended functions of structures, or manifest
and latent functions, and their unanticipated consequences. He added nuance to structural
functionalism by noting that dysfunctional structures can exist within systems, depending on
their relationship to other systems. Thus not all structures are positive, nor are all of them
indispensable.
43
Merton also took up Emile Durkheim's (1857-1917) notion of anomie. He suggested that when
individuals cannot act in accordance with normalized values or realize normalized goals because
of the obstacles created by social structures, it produces deviant behavior.
2.7 ASSESSMENT AND CRITICISMS OF FUNCTIONALISM
Criticisms
There are a number of criticisms of structural functionalism: it is ahistorical; it is unable to deal

effectively with the process of change or conflict; and it is conservative. It is viewed as
ambiguous and lacking in adequate methods. Structural functionalism inhibits certain forms of
analyses, such as comparative analysis. Structural functionalism has also been described as both
illegitimately teleological and tautological. The former implies that structural functionalists rely
too heavily on the notion that social structures have purposes or goals.
This notion is posited to justify the existence of particular structures without adequate theoretical
reasons or empirical backing. Tautology suggests that the conclusion of a theory makes explicit
what is implicit in the premise of the theory. Functionalist ideas almost portray humans as being
autonomous and that only socialisation determines our lives. They do not really see humans as
the unpredictable creatures they are, not possible to stray away from the predictable ideas that
functionalists have of people. Too much stress is placed on harmony and the potential for
conflict
and its affects are generally ignored.
There is no recognition of difference by class, region or ethnic group. The functionalist picture
is simply reflective of happy middle-class American families.
In particular with Durkheim’s work, it is too optimistic and maintains the idea of social solidarity
44
as the Main theme, and simply believes pathologies can be solved through simple social reform,
ignoring any problems or conflict and the affects.
Marxists argue that the modern family is organised to support and benefit the ruling class and the
capitalist economy, rather than benefiting all of society. In particular, they accuse functionalists
for ignoring the fact that power is not equally distributed in society. Some groups have more
wealth and power than others and may be able to impose their norms and values as less powerful
groups.
Feminists also criticize functionalists for ignoring male dominance that often is present in
society. Furthermore, the sexual division of labour it describes is not universal, with the relative
roles of women
and men in modern families can be seen to be gradually changing.
Many functionalists concentrate primarily on the universal nuclear family in modern societies,
with the growing diversity of family types is not considered.
Functionalists have a problem explaining social change. This is because of the emphasis their
perspective puts on a value consensus created through the socialization process. Also the idea of
revolutions contradicts the idea of social conflict. There is an over-emphasis upon the
"beneficial" aspects of various
institutional arrangements in society. Do Functionalists tend to see only the benefits that various
institutional relationships bring to "society"? Institutions can sometimes exploit people and
persecute/become corrupt.
45
2.8 SUMMARY
According to the functionalist perspective of sociology, each aspect of society is interdependent

and contributes to society's stability and functioning as a whole. For example, the government
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, in which members of the
society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a whole. This stands
apart from the other two main sociological perspectives: symbolic interactionalism, which
focuses on how people act according to their interpretations of the meaning of their world, and
conflict theory, which focuses on the negative, conflicted, ever-changing nature of society.
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,
46
functionalism sees active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will
compensate naturally for any problems that may arise.
a. Explain the assumptions and arguments of functionalism theories
b. Discuss Emile Durkheim’s perspectives on Functionalisms
c. Discuss Talcott Parsons perspectives on Functionalism
d. Discuss Robert Merton‘s perspectives on Functionalism
e. Explain the assessment and criticisms of Functionalism
2.10 IMPORTANT
• Although Functionalism has come under attack it still remains in the “Big Three”
• Society and social systems are comprised of interdependent parts, a major failure or
breakdown in one part can cause harm to the entire system.
– Ex: Enron caused major effects throughout the financial industry. Thus the social
system had to react to Enron to find equilibrium. An example of Parsons
47
Evolution Theory is the technological advancement of the cell phone. They
change the aspects of everyday life and society has to adapt
2.11 REFERENCES
Gerber, L., Macionis, J. (2011). Sociology: Seventh Canadian Edition. pp. 13-14.
Gerber, L., Macionis, J. (2011). Sociology: Seventh Canadian Edition. pp. 10.
Gertrud Lenzer, ed., Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings (New York:
Harper, 1975). pp. 71-86.
Macionis, John J. (2012). Sociology 14th Edition. Boston: Pearson. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-205-
11671-3.
 Barnard, A. 2000. History and Theory. Cambridge: CUP.

 Barnard, A., and Good, A. 1984. Research Practices in the Study of Kinship. London:
Academic Press.
48
 Holy, L. 1996. Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship. London: Pluto Press.
 Kuper, A. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion.

London: Routledge.
LETURE THREE
3.0 CONFLICT THEORY
3.1
INTRODUCTIONS TO CONFLICT THEORY
A prominent sociological theory that is often contrasted with structural-functionalism is conflict

theory. Conflict theory argues that society is not best understood as a complex system striving
for equilibrium but rather as a competition. Society is made up of individuals competing for
limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.). Broader social structures and
organizations (e.g., religions, government, etc.) reflect the competition for resources in their
inherent inequalities; some people and organizations have more resources (i.e., power and
influence) and use those resources to maintain their positions of power in society.
Conflict theory was developed in part to illustrate the limitations of structural-functionalism.
The structural-functionalist approach argued that society tends toward equilibrium, focusing on
stability at the expense of social change. This is contrasted with the conflict approach, which
argues that society is constantly in conflict over resources. One of the primary contributions
conflict theory presents over the structural-functional approach is that it is ideally suited for
explaining social change, a significant problem in the structural-functional approach
49
By the end of this lecture, the learner will be able to
 Understand the basic assumptions and arguments of the conflict perspectives
 Know Karl Marx’s opinion on conflict theory
 Know Ralf Dahrendorf opinion on conflict theory
 Understand assessment and critic’s of conflict theory
3.3 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE

CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE
The following are three primary assumptions of modern conflict theory:
• Competition over scarce resources is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition
rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships.
• Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and
groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained.
50
• Change occurs as a result of conflict between competing interests rather than through
adaptation. Change is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
A heuristic device to help you think about society from a conflict perspective is to ask, "Who
benefits from this element of society?" Using the same example as we did above, we can ask,
"Who benefits from the current higher educational system in the U.S.?" The answer, of course, is
the wealthy. Why? Because higher education in the U.S. is not free.
Thus, the educational system often screens out poorer individuals not because they are unable to
compete academically but because they cannot afford to pay for their education. Because the
poor are unable to obtain higher education, this means they are also generally unable to get
higher paying jobs which mean they remain poor. This can easily translate into a vicious cycle of
poverty. Thus, while the function of education is to educate the workforce, it also has built into it
an element of conflict and inequality, favoring one group (the wealthy) over other groups (the
poor). Thinking about education this way helps illustrate why both structural-functionalist and
conflict theories are helpful in understanding how society works.
Conflict theory was elaborated in the United Kingdom by Max Gluckman and John Rex, in the
United States by Lewis A. Coser and Randall Collins, and in Germany by Ralf Dahrendorf, all of
whom were influenced by Karl Marx, Ludwig Gumplovicz, Vilfredo Pareto, Georg Simmel, and
other founding fathers of European sociology.
51
3.4 KARL MARX
Introduction
There are a variety of interpretations of Karl Marx's (1818 - 1883) theory of capitalism. This
arises from both its unfinished nature and Marx's shifting points of emphasis across his lifetime.
The focus of Marx's work, however, was undoubtedly on the historical basis of inequality, and
specifically inequality under capitalism. Marx's critiques of the capitalist system - its tendency
towards crises, the necessity of inequality - are still relevant today.
The Dialectic
Marx's powerful critique has as it basis a unique approach to reality - the dialectic. Taking from
G.W.F. Hegel (1770 - 1831), Marx believed that any study of reality must be attuned to the
contradictions within society and, indeed, he sees contradiction as the motor of historical change.
Unlike Hegel, Marx believed that these contradictions existed not simply in our minds (i.e., in
the way we understand the world), but that they had a concrete material existence. At the heart of
capitalism was the contradiction between the demands of the capitalist to earn a profit and the
demands of the worker, who wants to retain some profit to subsist. Over time, the workings of
the capitalist system would exacerbate this contradiction, and its resolution can be had only
through social change.
The Dialectical Method
The dialectical approach does not recognize the division between social values and social facts.
To do so leads away from any real understanding of the problems people face. Additionally, the
52
dialectical method does not envision the social world as being dominated by a cause-and-effect
relationship; instead, it looks at the reciprocal relations among social factors within the totality of
social life. These relations include not only contemporary phenomena but also the effects of
history, as dialecticians are concerned with how the past shapes the present and how the present
lays the seeds for the future. Because of this complex set of relations, which often fold back in on
themselves, the future is both indeterminate and contingent on individual action. Indeed, this
relationship between actors and structures is at the heart of Marx's theory. Structures both
constrain and enable individuals, having the potential of both helping them to fulfill themselves
and contributing to their exploitation.
Human potential
Marx's insights into actors and structures must be understood in the context of his views on
human nature, which is the basis for his critical analysis of the contradictions of capitalism. Marx
viewed human nature as historically contingent, shaped by many of the same relations that affect
society. In his view, a contradiction exists between our human nature and work in the capitalist
system. Though we have powers that identify us as unique animals, our species being, the
possibilities for realizing human potential within the capitalist system are frustrated by the
structures of capitalism itself. Unlike most social theories that have implicit assumptions about
human nature, Marx elaborates a concept of human nature that also informed his view of how
society should look. An important factor in this is Marx's ideas about labor. By objectifying our
ideas and satisfying our needs, labor both expresses our human nature and changes it. Through
this process, individuals develop their human powers and potentials.
Alienation
Under capitalism, the relationship between labor and human expression changes: rather than
laboring to fulfill their needs or express ideas, workers do so at the demands of capitalists.
Workers are alienated from their labor because it no longer belongs to the worker, but rather to
the capitalist. This alienates workers in four ways;(components)
53
1. Workers are alienated from their productive activity, in that they no longer labor to
satisfy their own needs.
2. Workers are alienated from the product of their labor, which now belongs to the
capitalist. Instead of finding expression in producing, workers turn to consuming to express
themselves.
3. The cooperative nature of work is destroyed through the organization of the labor
process, alienating workers from their fellow workers. Additionally, workers often must compete
against one another for work and pay.
4. Workers are alienated from their human potential, as the transformative potential of labor
is lost under capitalism.
The Structures of Capitalist Society
Marx wrote in response to the rapid changes taking place in Europe in response to
industrialization, particularly in Germany. This period of dislocation and poverty is the context
for Marx's notion of alienation, and his critiques were designed to show that capitalism was the
basis for alienation and to develop a plan for action for overcoming the structures of capitalism.
Marx understood that inherent within capitalism was also a system of power: it is both economic
and political; it both coerces and exploits workers. Actions undertaken in the name of economic
necessity disguise political decisions For example, although it is an accepted economic method
for dealing with inflation, raising interest rates protects the wealthy, while causing
unemployment among the poor. The political decision to privilege the wealthy at the expense of
workers is hidden behind economics.
Commodities
Marx's understanding of commodities (products of labor intended for exchange) is central to

understanding his ideas about the nature of capitalism. Commodities produced to subsist and to
54
satisfy their needs have use value. Under capitalism, where workers produce for others and
exchange commodities for money, products have exchange value. Because it is often unclear
where a commodity's value comes from, it takes on an independent, external reality. Marx called
this the fetishism of commodities, when the value of an object or commodity is believed to be
tied to something "natural" or independent of human action, such as markets. Thus, the reality
that value originates from labor and the satisfaction of needs is obscured. Marx used the term
reification to describe the process whereby social structures become naturalized, absolute,
independent of human action, and unchangeable. Just as the fetishism of commodities obscures
the relationship between commodities, value, and human labor, reification obscures the
underlying relationships within the capitalist system and allows supposedly natural and objective
social structures to dominate people.
Capital, Capitalists, and Proletariat
Under capitalism, there are two main groups: the proletariat, who are wage-laborers, and the
capitalists, who own the means of production. Whereas workers are wholly dependent upon
wages, capitalists are dependent upon money invested to create more money. Capital is unique to
the circulation of commodities under capitalism. Under non-capitalist forms of exchange,
commodities are traded for money, which is then traded for another commodity (C1 - M - C2).
The primary reason for exchange is to obtain a commodity for use. Under capitalism, money is
used to purchase a commodity, which is then sold to create a greater amount of money (M1 - C -
M2). The purpose of this form of exchange is to create greater and greater sums of money.
Exploitation
Exploitation is a set of social relations on which capitalism is built. Capitalists exploit workers
by paying them less in wages than the value they produce. While a worker may earn eight dollars
a day in wages, s/he may produce ten dollars a day worth of value, creating what Marx called
surplus value. Capital grows by exploiting workers to generate ever greater amounts of surplus
value, usually by lowering workers' wages. In addition, capitalists constantly compete with one
another over capital by finding new ways to generate profit and surplus value in order to
maintain an edge. Marx calls this drive the general law of capitalist accumulation. Capitalism is
55
not the only historical epoch in which individuals are exploited, but it is the only one in which
the mechanisms of exploitation are hidden behind independent, objectified, and reified
structures, such as the market.
Class Conflict
The conflict created by the contradictory positions of two groups, the proletariat and the
capitalists, is at the heart of capitalism. Because these represent groups in conflict, Marx called
them classes. For Marx, every period of history contained fault lines upon which potential
conflict could result, and, thus, every historical period had its own class formations. Because
capitalists are continually accumulating capital while also competing with other capitalists, Marx
believed that more and more members of society would eventually become proletarians in a
process he called proletarianization. Society would then be characterized by a very small number
of capitalists exploiting a large number of poor proletarians subsisting on low wages. Marx
called this group of proletarians the industrial reserve army. Thus, the normal operation of the
capitalist system, through competition and exploitation, produces an ever greater number of
workers who will eventually rise up to overthrow the system.
Capitalism as a Good Thing
Despite his criticisms, Marx was aware of the benefits of capitalism, and generally understood it
to be a good thing. The productive capacity of capitalism could free people from need, and it
delivered people from the traditions that have dominated them throughout history. Marx
criticized capitalism from a future-oriented perspective, based upon his understanding of what
capitalism, as a revolutionary force in modern society, was capable of, and what its limits were.
Marx thought that capitalism had fully developed itself and that it was ready to enter a new mode
of production, communism.
The Materialist Conception of History
Marx's future-oriented perspective has its basis in his materialist conception of history. He
suggests that the ways societies provide for their material well-being affects the type of relations
that people will have with one another, their social institutions, and the prevailing ideas of the
56
day. Marx uses the term "the forces of production" to refer to the ways in which people provide
for their needs. He uses the term "relations of production" to describe social relationships that
dominate the productive capacities of a society. Under capitalism, the forces of production lead
to a set of relations of production which pit the capitalist and the proletariat against one another.
To change the relations of production, Marx felt revolution was necessary. Revolution arises
from exploited classes agitating for change in the relations of production that favor
transformations in the forces of production.
Ideology
The relations of production act to dissuade revolutionary behavior, as do the prevalent ideas
within society. Many of these ideas cloud the true relationships that underlie capitalist society.
Marx called these kinds of ideas ideologies. The first type of ideology is emergent from the
structure of society, and can be seen in things like the fetishism of commodities, or money. The
second type is used by the ruling class to hide the contradiction of this system when it becomes
apparent.
These explain away the contradiction by making them seem coherent (as in religion or
philosophy), making them seem the product of personal pathologies, or making them seem a
reflection of the contradiction within human nature itself and, therefore, immutable. Marx used
equality and freedom, our ideas of which stem from the nature of commodity exchange in
capitalist society. These mask the fact that we are neither equal with one another nor able to
freely control our labor or the products of our labor. Capitalism inverts our notion of equality and
freedom: it is capital that is freely and equally exchanged, not individuals who are free and equal.
Marx also viewed religion as an ideology. Just as freedom and equality are ideas to be cherished,
religion also contains positive dimensions, but it has been used to disguise the true set of
relations that undergird capitalism.
57
3.5 RALF DAHRENDORF
According to Dahrendorf, Marx’s notion of class is justifiable because in his time capitalism was
dominated by owner-managed firms where ownership and authority were concentrated in the
same hands. In contemporary economy, however, the most representative form of business
organization is a joint-stock company with dispersed share ownership.
In this situation control over the means of production is wielded by professional managers, and
not by legal owners. This shows, in Dahrendorf’s opinion, that the priority order of ownership
and power should be reversed, it is no longer, as in Marx’s time, that ownership entails authority,
but, contrariwise, property is subordinated to authority, is its special case.
First and foremost, the thesis that is the corporate managers who are in charge in companies is by
no means unanimously held; many property rights theorists maintain that the fact that it is them
that are entrusted with the day-to-day management does not matter, since at the end of the day
the interest of the shareholders who are true owners, after all, does take precedence owing to a
variety of mechanisms that ensure such an outcome.
Looking at the matter from a more theoretical angle, it may be noted that Dahrendorf is merely
the most known proponent of this view which is shared, inter alia, by such neo-Weberians as
Parkin (1979:46) and Giddens(1981:60) who treat exploitation as but a subspecies of the more
general phenomenon of domination. As will be argued, this view of the relationship between
ownership and control is false.
58
3.6 ASSESSMENT AND CRITICISMS OF CONFLICT THEORY
Not surprisingly, the primary limitation of the social-conflict perspective is that it overlooks the
stability of societies. While societies are in a constant state of change, much of the change is
minor. Many of the broader elements of societies remain remarkably stable over time, indicating
the structural-functional perspective has a great deal of merit.
As noted above, sociological theory is often complementary. This is particularly true of

structural-functionalism and social-conflict theories. Structural-functionalism focuses on
equilibrium and solidarity; conflict-theory focuses on change and conflict. Keep in mind that
neither is better than the other; when combined, the two approaches offer a broader and more
comprehensive view of society.
Marx has faced a number of criticisms. Most importantly, actual existing communism failed to
fulfill its promise. Though these experiments may have distorted Marx's thought, Marxist theory
certainly did not reflect its practice. Second, history has shown that workers have rarely been in
the vanguard of revolutionary movements, and indeed have resisted communism in some places.
Third, Marx failed to adequately consider gender as factor in the reproduction of labor and
commodity production. Fourth, some have accused Marx of focusing far too much on
production, without giving enough attention to the act of consumption. Last, Marx's historical
materialist approach uncritically accepts Western notions of progress.
59
3.7 SUMMARY
Conflict theory emphasizes the role of coercion and power in producing social order. This
perspective is derived from the works of Karl Marx, who saw society as fragmented into groups
that compete for social and economic resources. Social order is maintained by domination, with
power in the hands of those with the greatest political, economic, and social resources. When
consensus exists, it is attributable to people being united around common interests, often in
opposition to other groups. Marx theorized that the work of producing consensus was done in the
"superstructure" of society--which is composed of social institutions, political structures, and
culture. Following on the heels of Marx, Italian scholar and activist Antonio Gramsci argued that
consensus to rule is achieved in large part through cultural hegemony, which refers to the
dominant group's ability to attain consent to their rule through ideas, norms, values, and beliefs.
According to conflict theory, inequality exists because those in control of a disproportionate

share of society’s resources actively defend their advantages. The masses are not bound to
society by their shared values, but by coercion at the hands of those in power. This perspective
emphasizes social control, not consensus and conformity. Groups and individuals advance their
own interests, struggling over control of societal resources. Those with the most resources
exercise power over others with inequality and power struggles result. There is great attention
paid to class, race, and gender in this perspective because they are seen as the grounds of the
most pertinent and enduring struggles in society.
60
Whereas most other sociological theories focus on the positive aspects of society, 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 suggest that it glosses over the
complexities and nuances of everyday life and relationships of power.
a. Discuss the basic assumptions and arguments of the conflict perspectives
b. What is Karl Marx’s opinion on conflict theory
c. What is Ralf Dahrendorf opinion on conflict theory
61
d. Explain the assessment and critic’s of conflict theory
3.9 IMPORTANT
Maintains that what social order does, is the result of power elites’ coercion of masses.Those
without power seek social change ,Two class system by Marx,Contemporary conflict theorists
don’t limit power to just economics, but also look at other issues
Three criticisms of conflict theory:
1. Ignores other ways (i.e. non-forceful ways in which people reach agreements
2. Sides with people who lack power
3. Focuses on economic factors as the sole issue for all conflict in society
This primarily is for Marx’s approach
 Differences in power are in all types of interaction
 Power used to be physical, but now, it’s legal and economic
62
3.10 REFERENCES
Stark, Rodney (2007). Sociology (10th ed.). thomas wadsworth. ISBN 0-495-09344-0.

Lenski, Gerhard E. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratificaion. McGraw-
Hill. ISBN 0-07-037165-2.
Collins, Randall (1994). Four Sociological Traditions: Selected Readings. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-508702-X.
Thio, Alex (2008). Sociology: A Brief Introduction (7th ed.). Pearson. ISBN 0-205-40785-4.
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, introduction by Martin Malia (New York: Penguin
group, 1998), pg. 35 ISBN 0-451-52710-0
63
Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,
Fifty Key Sociologists: the Formative Theorists, John Scott Irving, 2007, pg 59
“Communicating Ideas: The Politics of Scholarly Publishing", Irving Louis Horowitz, 1986, pg
281
 “Outlines of Sociology", pg 196
 “Transforming Leadership", James MacGregor Burns, 2004, pg 189
LECTURE FOUR
4.0 SOCIAL ACTION THEORY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The basic concept was primarily developed in the non-positivist theory of Max Weber to observe
how human behaviors relate to cause and effect in the social realm. For Weber, sociology is the
study of society and behavior and must therefore look at the heart of interaction. The theory of
social action, more than structural functionalist positions, accepts and assumes that humans vary
their actions according to social contexts and how it will affect other people; when a potential
reaction is not desirable, the action is modified accordingly. Action can mean either a basic
action (one that has a meaning) or an advanced social action, which not only has a meaning but
is directed at other actors and causes action (or, perhaps, inaction).
[Sociology is] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby
give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it
produces. By 'action' in this definition is meant the human behavior when and to the extent that
the agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the meaning to which we refer may be
either
(a) The meaning actually intended either by an individual agent on a particular historical
occasion or by a number of agents on an approximate average in a given set of cases, or
64
(b) The meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the
abstract. In neither case is the 'meaning' to be thought of as somehow objectively 'correct' or 'true'
by some metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action,
such as sociology and history, and any kind of priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic,
ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter 'correct' or 'valid' meaning.
By the end of this lecture the learner will be able to
 Understand what social action is
 Type of social action theory
4.3 MAX WEBER VIEW ON SOCIAL ACTION
The term is more practical and encompassing than Florian Znaniecki's "social phenomena", since
the individual performing social action is not passive, but rather active and reactive. Although
Weber himself used the word 'agency', in modern social science this term is often appropriated
with a given acceptance of Weberian conceptions of social action, unless a work intends to make
the direct allusion. Similarly, 'reflexivity' is commonly used as a shorthand to refer to the circular
relationship of cause and effect between structure and agency which Weber was integral in
hypothesising.
Types of social action
• Rational actions (also known as value-rational ones, wertrational): actions which are
taken because it leads to a valued goal, but with no thought of its consequences and often without
65
consideration of the appropriateness of the means chosen to achieve it ('the end justifies the
means'). Value rational or Instrumentally rational social action is divided into two groups:
rational consideration and rational orientation. Rational consideration is when secondary results
are taken into account rationally. This is also considered alternative means when secondary
consequences have ended. Determining this mean of action is quite hard and even incompatible.
Rational orientation is being able to recognize and understand certain mediums under common
conditions. According to Weber, heterogeneous actors and groups that are competing, find it
hard to settle on a certain medium and understand the common social action;
• Instrumental action (also known as value relation, goal-instrumental ones,

zweckrational): actions which are planned and taken after evaluating the goal in relation to other
goals, and after thorough consideration of various means (and consequences) to achieve it. An
example would be a high school student preparing for life as a lawyer. The student knows that in
order to get into college, he/she must take the appropriate tests and fill out the proper forms to
get into college and then do well in college in order to get into law school and ultimately realize
his/her goal of becoming a lawyer. If the student chooses not to do well in college, he/she knows
that it will be difficult to get into law school and ultimately achieve the goal of being a lawyer.
Thus the student must take the appropriate steps to reach the ultimate goal.
Another example would be most economic transactions. Value Relation is divided into the
subgroups commands and demands. According to the law, people are given commands and must
use the whole system of private laws to break down the central government or domination in the
legal rights in which a citizen possess. Demands can be based on justice or human dignity just
for morality. These demands have posed several problems even legal formalism has been put to
the test. These demands seem to weigh on the society and at times can make them feel immoral.
The rational choice approach to religion draws a close analogy between religion and the market
economy. Religious firms compete against one another to offer religious products and services to
consumers, who choose between the firms. To the extent that there are many religious firms
competing against each other, they will tend to specialize and cater to the particular needs of
some segments of religious consumers. This specialization and catering in turn increase the
66
number of religious consumers actively engaged in the religious economy. This proposition has
been confirmed in a number of empirical studies.
It is well known that strict churches are strong and growing in the contemporary United States,
whereas liberal ones are declining. For Iannaccone’s religious experience is a jointly produced
collective good. Thus members of a church face a collective action problem. Strict churches,
which often impose costly and esoteric requirements on their members, are able to solve this
problem by weeding out potential free riders, since only the very committed would join the
church in the face of such requirements. Consistent with the notion that religious experience is a
collective good, Iannaccone et al. show that churches that extract more resources from their
members (in the form of time and money) tend to grow in membership.
• Affection action (also known as emotional actions): actions which are taken due to one's
emotions, to express personal feelings. For examples, cheering after a victory, crying at a funeral
would be affection actions. Effectual is divided into two subgroups: uncontrolled reaction and
emotional tension. In uncontrolled reaction there is no restraint and there is lack of discretion. A
person with an uncontrolled reaction becomes less inclined to consider other peoples’ feelings as
much as their own. Emotional tension comes from a basic belief that a person is unworthy or
powerless to obtain his/her deepest aspirations. When aspirations are not fulfilled there is internal
unrest. It is often difficult to be productive in society because of the unfulfilled life. Emotion is
often neglected because of concepts at the core of exchange theory. A common example is
behavioral and rational choice assumptions. From the behavioral view, emotions are often
inseparable from punishments.
• Emotion: Emotions are one's feelings in response to a certain situation. There are six
types of emotion: social emotions, counterfactual emotions, emotions generated by what may
happen (often manifested as anxiety), emotions generated by joy and grief (examples found in
responses typically seen when a student gets a good grade, and when a person is at a funeral,
respectively), thought-triggered emotions (sometimes manifested as flashbacks), and finally
emotions of love and disgust. All of these emotions are considered to be unresolved. There are
six features that are used to define emotions: intentional objects, valence, cognitive antecedents,
67
physiological arousal, action tendencies, and lastly physiological expressions. These six concepts
were identified by Aristotle and are still the topic of several talks.
• Macro institutional theory of Economic Order: Nicole Biggart and Thomas Beamish have
a slightly different approach to human habit then Max Weber. Whereas Weber believed
economic organization is based on structures of material interest and ideas, institutional
sociologist like Biggart and Beamish stress macro-institutional sources of arrangements of
market capitalism.
Micrological theories of economy consider acts of a group of individuals. Economic theory is

based on the assumption that when the highest bidder succeeds the market clears.
Microeconomics theories believe that individuals are going to find the cheapest way to buy the
things they need. By doing this it causes providers to be competitive and therefore creates order
in the economy.
• Rational choice theorists, on the other hand, believe that all social action is rationally
motivated. Rationality means that the actions taken are analyzed and calculated for the greatest
amount of (self)-gain and efficiency. Rational choice theory although increasingly colonized by
economist, it does differ from microeconomic conceptions. Yet rational choice theory can be
similar to microeconomic arguments. Rational choice assumes individuals to be egoistic and
hyperrational although theorist mitigate these assumptions by adding variables to their models.
• Traditional actions: actions which are carried out due to tradition, because they are
always carried out in a particular manner for certain situations. An example would be putting on
clothes or relaxing on Sundays. Some traditional actions can become a cultural artifact
Traditional is divided into two subgroups: customs and habit. A custom is a practice that rests
among familiarity. It is continually perpetuated and is ingrained in a culture. Customs usually
last for generations. A habit is a series of steps learned gradually and sometimes without
conscious awareness. As the old cliché goes, “old habits are hard to break” and new habits are
difficult to form.
• Social Action models help explain Social Outcomes because of basic sociological ideas
such as the Looking Glass Self. The idea of Cooley’s Looking glass self is that our sense of self
68
develops as we observe and reflect upon others and what they may think of our actions.
Additionally, impression formation processes allow us to interpret the significance of others'
actions.
• Social Actions and Institutions Model: An ‘institution’ consists of specialized roles and
settings that are linked together semantically with the complex typically being devoted to serving
some function within society.
4.4 SUMMARY
The social action theory stresses the ability of individuals to exert control over their own actions.
The individual is no passive receptacle of society's directives, but an active creator of social
behavior. So it is society which is constructed by the individuals, and not the other way around,
as the social system theory believes. Human beings are capable of conscious thought and this
enables them to be aware of themselves and others as social beings. They have their own motives
and beliefs, and their own interpretation of the meaning of a situation, they control their own
actions. Social action perspectives are so called because of this emphasis on people taking action,
on directing their own behavior. This approach is also known as an interpretive perspective
because it sees people interpreting and giving meaning to a situation and to the actions and
motives of others.
69
a. What is social action?
b. Mention different type of social action theory
4.6 REFERENCES
 Secher, H. P. (1962), Basic Concepts in Sociology. Contributors: Max Weber, New York:
Citadel Press
 Weber, Max (1991), "The Nature of Social Action.", Runciman, W.G. 'Weber: Selections in
Translation', Cambridge University Press
4.7 FURTHER READING
 Stark, Rodney (2007), Sociology, USA: Thomson Wadsworth, ISBN 0-495-09344-0

70
 Sciulli, David (1992), Theory of Societal Constitutionalism: Foundations of a Non-Marxist
Critical Theory., Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-41040-1
 Weber, Max (1978), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology., USA:
University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-03500-3
 Gecas, Viktor; Schwalbe, M. L. (1983), Beyond The Looking Glass Self: Social Structure and
Efficacy-Based Self-Esteem, The Scholarly Journal Archive 46 (2): 77–88, JSTOR 3033844
LECTURE FIVE
5.0 SYMBOLIC INTERATIONALISM
5.1 INTRODUCTION TO SYMBOLIC INTERACTION
In contrast to the rather broad approach toward society of structural-functionalism and conflict
theory, Symbolic Interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the relationship
between humans and society. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human action
and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or
symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting as opposed to being acted upon.
The main principles of symbolic interactionism are:
1. Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that things have for them
2. These meanings arise from social interaction
3. Social action results from a fitting together of individual lines of action
This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of psychological theories prevalent at
the time it was first formulated (in the 1920s and 1930s). According to Symbolic Interactionism,
humans are distinct from infrahumans (lower animals) because infrahumans simply respond to
71
their environment (i.e., a stimulus evokes a response or stimulus -> response) whereas humans
have the ability to interrupt that process (i.e., stimulus -> cognition -> response). Additionally,
infrahumans are unable to conceive of alternative responses to gestures. Humans, however, can.
This understanding should not be taken to indicate that humans never behave in a strict stimulus
-> response fashion, but rather that humans have the capability of not responding in that fashion
(and do so much of the time)
This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought (see social constructionism and
phenomenology). According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has no reality for
humans, only subjectively-defined objects have meaning. Meanings are not entities that are
bestowed on humans and learned by habituation. Instead, meanings can be altered through the
creative capabilities of humans, and individuals may influence the many meanings that form
their society.
Human society, therefore, is a social product.
Neurological evidence based on EEGs supports the idea that humans have a "social brain," that
is, there are components of the human brain that govern social interaction.
These parts of the brain begin developing in early childhood (the preschool years) and aid
humans in understanding how other people think.
In symbolic interactionism, this is known as "reflected appraisals" or "the looking glass self" and
refers to our ability to think about how other people will think about us. A good example of this
is when people try on clothes before going out with friends. Some people may not think much
about how others will think about their clothing choices, but others can spend quite a bit of time
considering what they are going to wear. And while they are deciding, the dialogue that is taking
place inside their mind is usually a dialogue between their "self" (that portion of their identity
that calls itself "I") and that person's internalized understanding of their friends and society (a
"generalized other"). An indicator of mature socialization is when an individual quite accurately
predicts how other people think about him/her. Such an individual has incorporated the "social"
into the "self."
72
It should also be noted that symbolic interactionists advocate a particular methodology. Because
they see meaning as the fundamental component of human and society interaction, studying
human and society interaction requires getting at that meaning. Thus, symbolic interactionists
tend to employ more qualitative rather than quantitative methods in their research
By the end of this lecture, the learner will have an idea of
 George Herbert Mead opinion on Symbolic interactionism
 Herbert Blummer’s opinion on symbolic interactionism
 Ervin Goffman’s opinion on symbolic interactionism
5.3GEORGE HERBERT MEAD
73
Symbolic interactionism is a school of thought in sociology that explains social behavior in terms
of how people interact with each other via symbols; in this view, social structures are best
understood in terms of such individual interactions. Symbolic interactionism was developed by
thinkers such George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer in the 20th century. Mead believed that
one's self develops through social interactions. Moreover, how people communicate and interact
with each other depends on how they interpret factors such as language, actions, and statuses
(potential symbols). For example, one might interpret a handshake as either a friendly greeting or
cool farewell, depending on context (the symbolism of a handshake varies). Sometimes symbols
change; long hair in males once symbolized rebellion, but now does not.
The Historical Roots of Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism, especially the work of George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), traces its
roots to two intellectual traditions: pragmatism and psychological behaviorism. Mead adopted
from the pragmatists three important themes:
(1) A focus on the interaction between actors and the social world,
(2) A view of both actors and the social world as dynamic processes, and
(3) The centrality of actors' ability to interpret the social world. In sum, both pragmatism and
symbolic interactionism view thinking as a process. Mead recognized the importance of overt,
observable behavior, but expanded the understanding of mental capacities of most psychological
behaviorists by stressing the importance of covert behavior. Unlike the radical behaviorists,
Mead believed that there were significant differences between human beings and animals,
particularly the human capacity to use language and dynamically created social reality.
The Ideas of Mead
Mead's most widely read work, Mind, Self and Society, gives priority to society over the mind
and highlights the idea that the social leads to the development of mental states. To Mead, the
mind is a process, not a thing, and is found in social phenomena rather than within individuals.
The act is the fundamental union in Mead's theory, and it is represented by four stages: impulse,
74
perception, manipulation, and consummation. The basic mechanism of the social act, according
to Mead, is the gesture. Mead pays particular attention to one kind of gesture, significant
symbols, which make it possible for humans to think, to communicate, and to be stimulators of
their own actions.
The self occupies a central place in Mead's theory. Mead defines the self as the ability to take
oneself as an object and identifies the basic mechanism of the development of the self as
reflexivity - the ability to put ourselves into the place of others and act as they act. Mead makes it
clear that a self can arise only through social experiences, and he traces its development to two
stages in childhood: the play stage and the game stage.
During the play stage, children learn how to take the attitude of particular others to themselves,
but it is only during the game stage that children learn how to take the roles of many others and
the attitude of the generalized other. Mead also discussed the difference between the "I" and the
"me" in his theory of the self. The "I" is the immediate response of an individual to the other; it is
the unpredictable and creative aspect of the self. The "me" is the organized set of attitude of
others that an individual assumes; it is how society dominates the individual and is a source of
social control.
The Basic Principles of Symbolic Interactionism
The basic principles of symbolic interactionism include the following:
(1) Human beings possess the capacity for thought, which is shaped by social interaction;
(2) People learn meanings and symbols through social interaction; and
(3) People are able to modify or alter the meanings and symbols they use in interactions by
interpreting the situations they are engaged in.
Socialization is one way individuals learn to think, interact with one another, and understand
how to use meanings and symbols. Defining the situation is another way that individuals actively
engage in creating the social world. Finally, developing a "looking-glass" self helps individuals
to perceive and judge the impressions we make on others we interact with.
75
For being too vague on the conceptual front and for downplaying large-scale social structures.
Given its micro-level focus, some have argued that symbolic interactionism is not microscopic
enough, because it tends to ignore psychological factors.
Symbolic interactionists are currently trying to answer some of these criticisms by integrating
micro- and macro-level theories and synthesizing their approach across other fields of study. For
example, some scholars are redefining Mead's theory to show that it accounts for both micro- and
macro-level phenomena. Others are using role theory as a way to integrate structure and
meaning. Some symbolic interactionists are focusing more attention on culture and are working
within cultural studies to examine the role communication technologies play in producing and
representing social reality.
Symbolic interactionism has changed considerably since its inception. According to one
symbolic interactionist, Gary Fine, the field has fragmented, resulting in greater diversity. It has
expanded beyond its concerns with micro-level relations, incorporated ideas from other
theoretical perspectives, and been adopted by sociologists who would not define themselves as
symbolic interactionists.
5.4 HERBERT BLUMMER
Although Blumer devised the term symbolic interaction in 1937, the early development of this
theoretical approach to social analysis is largely credited to the work of George Herbert Mead
during his time at the University of Chicago. Blumer played a key role in keeping the tradition of
symbolic interactionism alive by incorporating it into his teachings at the University of Chicago.
76
Blumer presented his articles on symbolic interactionism in a single volume in which he
conceptualized symbolic interaction into three main points:
• Humans act towards things (including other individuals) on the basis of the
meanings they have for them.
o There is a particular emphasis on the consciousness of actors as they interpret

their actions.
o It is important to recognize that the meaning or value of an object to one person

may differ with another person- sociologists should not reduce human action to social
rules and norms.
o Blumer stresses this point because of the fear that our subjective meaning of our
actions could be overshadowed by the norms and rules of society
• The meaning of things arises out of the social interactions one has with one's
fellows.
o The meaning of something is a social product, therefore it is not inherent in

things.
• Meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process a person
uses in dealing with the things he or she encounters.
o Meanings are seen as a series of interpretive actions by the actor.
o The actor gives objects meanings, act accordingly based on these meanings, and
then revises the meanings to guide his future action.
o The actor has an internal conversation with himself to determine the meanings,
especially when encountering something out of the ordinary.
Blumer believed that what creates society itself is people engaging in social interaction. It
follows then that social reality only exists in the context of the human experience. His theory of
77
symbolic interaction, some argue, is thus closer to a theoretical framework (based on the
significance of meanings and the interaction between individuals than an applicable theory.
According to Blumer's theory, interaction between individuals is based on autonomous action,

which in turn is based on the subjective meaning actors attribute to social objects and/or
symbols. Thus individual actors regulate their behavior based on the meaning they attribute to
objects and symbols in their relevant situation. Blumer theorized that assigning objects meaning
is an ongoing, two-fold process. First, is the identification of the objects that have situational
meaning.
Second, is the process of internal communication to decide which meaningful object to respond
to. Acknowledging that others are equally autonomous, individuals use their subjectively derived
interpretations of others (as social objects) to predict the outcome of certain behaviors, and use
such predictive insight to make decisions about their own behavior in the hopes of reaching their
goal. Thus, when there is consensus among individual actors about the meaning of the objects
that make up their situation, social coordination ensues. Social structures are determined as much
by the action of individual actors as they determine the action of those individuals. Based on this,
Blumer believed that society exists only as a set of potentials, or ideas that people could possibly
use in the future.
This complex interaction between meanings, objects, and behaviors, Blumer reiterated, is a
uniquely human process because it requires behavioral responses based on the interpretation of
symbols, rather than behavioral responses based on environmental stimuli. As social life is a
"fluid and negotiated process," to understand each other, humans must intrinsically engage in
symbolic interaction. Blumer criticized the contemporary social science of his day because
instead of using symbolic interactionism they made false conclusions about humans by reducing
human decisions to social pressures like social positions and roles. Blumer was more invested in
psychical interactionism that holds that the meanings of symbols are not universal, but are rather
subjective and are “attached” to the symbols and the receiver depending on how they choose to
interpret them.
Blumer's 3 types of objects
78
The importance of thinking to symbolic interactionists is shown through their views on objects.
Blumer defined objects as the things "out there" in the world. The significance of objects is how
they are defined by the actor. In other words, different objects have different meanings
depending on the individual.
• Physical (a chair, a tree)
• Social (student, mother, friend)
• Abstract (ideas or moral principals)
Summary principles of symbolic interactionism
• Human beings are capable of thought.
• This capacity for thought is shaped by social interaction.
• We learn the meanings and the symbols through social interaction, exercising the
human capacity for thought.
• These meanings and symbols provide the basis for distinctive human action and
interaction.
• Modification of meanings and symbols occur through the interpretation of
situations.
• Humans' capability of modification is due to their ability to interact with
themselves.
• The intertwining of interaction and action make up groups and societies.
Methodological contributions to sociology
According to Herbert Blumer, the most valid and desirable social research is conducted through
qualitative, ethnographic methodology. He persistently critiqued the idea that that the only form
of valid knowledge is derived through a totally objective perspective. Blumer believed that
theoretical and methodological approaches to studying human behavior must acknowledge
human beings as thinking, acting, and interacting individuals and also must employ that
represent the humanly known, socially created, and experienced world. As this directly
challenges the thought process of traditional, positivism-based approach to sociological method,
much controversy surrounds Blumer’s sociological approach to empirical research.
Blumer believed that when positivistic methods were applied to social research, they created
results that were ignorant to the empirical realities of the social world. Because people act
79
towards the world based on the subjective meanings they attribute to different objects (symbolic
interactionism), individuals construct worlds that are inherently subjective. Therefore "objective"
analysis is intrinsically subjugated to the researcher's own social reality, only documents the
researchers own grotesque personal assumptions about social interaction, and ultimately yields
bias findings.For a researcher to truly understand sociological phenomena, Blumer asserted, they
must understand their subject’s subjective interpretations of reality.
Following this logic, Blumer discounted social research that blindly applies methods that have
been traditionally used in the natural sciences. Such quantitative, objective analysis, he argued,
does not acknowledge the difference between humans and animals – specifically the difference
in cognitive ability to consciously entertain opinions and to apply meanings to objects, both
which enables humans to take an active role in shaping their world. Because society is composed
of interactions between individuals or "joint actions/transactions", the only empirical reality is
that which stems from human interaction. Therefore contextual understanding of human action is
intrinsic to valid social research.
Thus Blumer advocated for sociological research that sympathetically and subjectively
incorporates the viewpoints of the subject, therefore pushing for a micro-sociological
approach,Concluding that there is little validity in research that attempted to understand the
social world objectively, Blumer felt that objective interpretations of society are intrinsically bias
to the researchers social location and thus have little empirical value.To truthfully uncover the
social realities of individuals different from one's self, an observer must be mindful of their
framework and be open to different understanding of social reality.
Macrostructures and microstructures
Blumer believed that society is not made up of macrostructures, but rather that the essence of
society is found in microstructures, specifically in actors and their actions. These microstructures
are not isolated, but consist of the collective action of combination, giving rise to the concept of
joint action. Joint action is not just the sum of individual actions, but takes on a character of its
own. Blumer did not reject the idea of macrostructures, but instead focused on the concept of
emergence-our larger social structures emerge from the smaller. Blumer admitted that
80
macrostructures are important, but that they have an extremely limited role in symbolic
interactionism. Therefore, he argued that macrostructures are a little more than “frameworks”
within which the really important aspects of social life (action and interaction) take place.
Moreover, according to Blumer, macrostructures are important because they shape the situations
in which individuals act and supply to actors a certain set of symbols that allow them to act.
Also, he did not deny systems such as culture and social order. In sum, Blumer said that large
scale structures are the frameworks for what is crucial in society, action and interaction. He is not
denying that social structures influence our actions, just that they do not determine our actions.
5.5 ERVIN GOFFMAN
The Work of Goffman
Erving Goffman (1922-1982) focused on dramaturgy, a view of social life as a series of dramatic
performances, and he was interested in how the self is shaped by the dramatic interactions
between social actors and their audiences. The basic unit of analysis in Goffman's work is a
team, which is any set of individuals who cooperate in staging a single act or routine. The central
theme in his work is impression management, or the techniques that social actors use to maintain
particular images of themselves when they encounter problems during interactions.
As a general rule, most individuals feel the need to hide certain things about themselves when
they are engaged in a performance. Goffman used the concepts of front stage, personal front,
setting, appearance, manner, and back stage to discuss the theater of social life. According to
Goffman, fronts tend to become institutionalized and are therefore selected rather than created.
Personal fronts consist of appearance, or expressive equipment that tells the audience what kind
81
of role the performer expects to play in a particular situation. The back stage is where actors
engage in informal action that is suppressed when on front stage.
Goffman also addressed the issue of stigma in his work. Stigmas emerge when there is a gap
between a person's virtual social identity and actual social identity. Goffman differentiated
between discredited stigmas, which actors assume when their stigmas are evident to audience
members (like loss of a nose) and discreditable stigmas, which audience members are unaware of
unless an actor discloses this information (like his being infertile.) According to Goffman, we all
possess some type of stigma, depending on the situations we are in.
Later in his career Goffman moved away from symbolic interactionism to the study of small-
scale structures or frames. Frames are understood by Goffman as rules that constrain social
action and function to organize experience. He also described frames as the rituals of everyday
life. Goffman's move toward studying frames and rituals led him away from his earlier cynical
view social life and brought him closer to Durkheim's work The Elementary Forms of Religious
Life.
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism and Its New Directions
Symbolic interactionism has been criticized for relying too much on qualitative methodology and
for failing to incorporate quantitative methodology into its research program. It has also been
criticized
5.6 SUMMARY
The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a major framework
of sociological theory. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and
rely upon in the process of social interaction. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins
to Max Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of
82
their world, the American philosopher George Herbert Mead introduced this perspective to
American sociology in the 1920s
Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings that people
impose on objects, events, and behaviors. Subjective meanings are given primacy because it is
believed that people behave based on what they believe and not just on what is objectively true.
Thus, society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation. People interpret
one another’s behavior and it is these interpretations that form the social bond.
These interpretations are called the “definition of the situation.” For example, why would young
people smoke cigarettes even when all objective medical evidence points to the dangers of doing
so? The answer is in the definition of the situation that people create. Studies find that teenagers
are well informed about the risks of tobacco, but they also think that smoking is cool, that they
themselves will be safe from harm, and that smoking projects a positive image to their peers. So,
the symbolic meaning of smoking overrides that actual facts regarding smoking and risk.
Some fundamental aspects of our social experience and identities, like race and gender, can be
understood through the symbolic interactionist lens. Having no biological bases at all, both race
and gender are social constructs that function based on what we believe to be true about people,
given what they look like. We use socially constructed meanings of race and gender to help us
decide who to interact with, how to do so, and to help us determine, sometimes inaccurately, the
meaning of a person's words or actions.
Critics of this theory 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” rather than the “forest”. The perspective
also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual
interactions. In the case of smoking, the functionalist perspective might miss the powerful role
that the institution of mass media plays in shaping perceptions of smoking through advertising,
and by portraying smoking in film and television. In the cases of race and gender, this
83
perspective would not account for social forces like systemic racism or gender discrimination,
which strongly influence what we believe race and gender mean.
 Discuss George Herbert Mead opinion on Symbolic interactionism
 Discuss Herbert Blummer’s opinion on symbolic interactionism
 Discuss Ervin Goffman’s opinion on symbolic interactionism
5.8 IMPORTANT
• Symbolic interactionism adds micro-level perspective to mainstream sociology

84
• It adds potential to bridge gap between macro and micro-levels
• It advances our understanding of sociological processes.
5.9 REFERENCES
 Herman-Kinney Nancy J., Reynolds, Larry T. (2003). Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism.

New York: AltaMira.
 Griffin, Emory A. (2006). A First Look at Communication Theory. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
 Engestrom, Yrjo, and David Middleton. "Cognition and Communication at Work."
 Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
 Meltzer B.N., Petras J.W. & Reynolds L.T.(1975). Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis,
Varieties, and Criticism. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
5.9 FURTHER READING

85
 Blumer, Herbert (1962). "Society as Symbolic Interaction". In Arnold M. Rose. Human
Behavior and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach. Houghton-Mifflin. Reprinted
in Blumer (1969).
 Blumer, Herbert. (1971). Social Problems as Collective Behavior=2006 (translated in
Japanese), Journal of Economics and Sociology
 Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Print.
 Plummer, Ken. "A World in the Making: Symbolic Interactionism in the Twentieth
Century." (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
 Plummer, Kenneth. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul.
LECTURE SIX
6.0 THEORIES OF RATIONAL CHOICE/EXCHAGE THEORY
6.1 INTRODUCTION
A different approach to the theory of social action from that discussed so far is rational choice
theory. The theories discussed earlier consider individual and group actions to be social in that
they are concerned with meaning, interpretatio n, interaction, symbols, self-definition, feelings,
emotions, and how people do things together. Weber and Parsons differ from the interactionists
in terms of how they define meaning and the relative importance that each attributes to
subjective conscious ness as opposed to praxis. But all these perspectives emphasize that action
is social in the sense that social values and norms, and social order, are integral to their
explanations of human interaction. Each of these approaches emphasizes shared meanings and
ways in which interpretation and action are worked out jointly through a broad range of
expressive aspects of human action.
86
Rational choice theories adopt quite a different approach to the study of social action, human
agency, and social systems and structures. As with other sociological perspectives, there are
many variants of rational choice theory, but each tends to diff er from other sociological
perspectives in the following two ways.
a. Individual. First, RCT begins from the viewpoint of the individual, rather than from
several individuals interacting together, from social situations, or from groups. The
emphasis on the individual and his or her interests is always a startin g point for any
theory of rational choice. Different theorists of rational choice may make somewhat
different assumptions about the individual and proceed in different ways from the
individual to larger social groupings and systems, but each begins with t he individual as
the basic unit of the theory.
Abell notes that "it is only individuals who ultimately take actions and social actions …
individual actions and social actions are optimally chosen" and "individuals’ actions and
social actions are en tirely concerned with their own welfare" (p. 260). Each of these
basic assumptions show the methodological individualism of RCT – the individual as
actor with an initial concern only about him or herself and his or her welfare. From this
basis RCT may sho w how sharing, cooperation, or norms emerge, but the basis is always
the individual social actor.
b. Minimalist. A second major aspect of RCT is that it is sociologically minimalist. RCT

begins with a few simple assumptions about the individual and the relationship among
individuals, and from these builds models of social action and interact ion that describe
and explain the complexities of larger groups, systems, and whole societies. This
approach is very different from the systems and structural approaches of Durkheim or
Parsons, who make social norms and values at the societal level an ess ential feature of
their perspective. It also differs from the writers in the Marxian and Weberian traditions
that emphasize large-scale, global, and historical social forces.
RCT also runs counter to the symbolic interaction, interpretive, and feminist ap proaches that
adopt a more dense and complex view of social actors and social interaction. The latter consider
87
meaning, interpretation, emotions, experiences, and a wide variety of aspects of human
existence, none of which can be reduced to the other, nor is capable of simple explanation.
Much recent sociological theorizing has emphasized the complexity of the individual, the variety
of individual experiences, and the diverse ways that individuals develop selves and social action.
The terms thick descript ions and rich explanations are sometimes used in this connection.
Goffman’s detailed analysis of how people present and maintain face is an example of how
complex human actions appear to be. In contrast, RCT adopts a relatively spare and simple
model of t he individual, one that can be applied across time and space, so that it is a universal
model. RCT also is an example of a more formal theoretical perspective in the "scientific"
tradition, with assumptions, concepts, logical deductions from these, and fo rmal models.
c. Variety and Uses of RCT. As with the other theoretical approaches, RCT has many varieties.
While they all are methodologically individualist and minimalist, each may adopt somewhat
different assumptions. Following this, each develops these in a somewhat different way. The
concerns of various theorists in this tradition are quite different, although all attempt to build a
model that explains various social phenomena or society as a whole.
In his introduction to Section III of the text, Turner notes that RCT is "the most overt and
systematic attempt to resolve the micro-macro relationship … to find an adequate analytical
bridge between individual social actions and their structural, macr o outcomes" (p. 222). RCT is
not modest about its claims, and some theorists in this tradition argue that RCT provides the only
overall explanation of social systems and society, and the only solid basis for progress toward a
unified social theory. RCT so ciologists tackle issues related to individual action and social
interaction, and also attempt to explain social norms and collective behaviour. While this
perspective begins from minimalist assumptions, its scope is very broad – to provide an unified,
al l-encompassing social theory. James Coleman ambitiously titles his book Foundations of
Social Theory.
Because of the emphasis on the individual, RCT is sometimes regarded as neoliberal or part of
right-wing ideology – part of the new emphasis on the individual that has been associated with a
decline of broad based social programs and social concerns in contemporary society. While RCT
88
could be turned in this direction, it does not necessarily lead to an individualistic overall model
of society. For example, part of Coleman’s aim is to explain why and how social norms emerge.
In doing this, Coleman does not reject the existence of norms but tackles an issue that we might
all agree needs explanation, and one which Durkheim and Parsons took for granted.
In addition, some neo-Marxians are rational choice theorists. While there are many different
aspect to Marx’s model of capitalism, in some ways it is a rational choice model, beginning with
some simple assumptions about the commodity and how humans exe rcise choice, and building
an explanation for exploitation and class struggle from this. Some recent Marxist theorists (most
notably Jon Elster and John Roemer – p. 265) have developed new models of exploitation based
on models of rational choice. These h ave been useful in showing how exploitation can emerge
in ways other than the exploitation of labour directly in the labour process – for example,
exploitation might occur in the exchange process. Roemer argues that "exploitation has much
more to do with property relations than with the labor market – and that Marxists’ focus on the
labor market has been excessive and has given rise to their own fetishism of labor" (Roemer,
1988, p. 10). Roemer shows how exploitation can exist in socialist societies and h ow ownership
of skills and credentials can be associated with exploitation, just as well as ownership of capital.
As with any other sociological theory, RCT should be considered on the basis of its ability to
help us explain and understand the social world. There is no doubt that each of us is an
individual, and if a theory developed from this point of view can he lp explain aspects of social
interaction and social systems, then it has worthwhile aspects to it. In addition, in our society
considerable amounts of social action are explicitly rational actions undertaken by individuals –
purchase of consumer durables, choice of a career, and perhaps even choice of a lover or spouse.
Where the choices are not entirely conscious and rational, it is possible that RCT models may
help explain much social action.
Critics of RCT note several problems – too individualistic, too minimalist, and too focussed on
rational choices in social action. One tendency that RCT sociologists have is to justify any
human action as rational. For example, we are all involved in s haring and cooperative activities
and each of us devotes some time or money to assist others. RCT tends to argue that in the end,
these are all inspired by individual pursuit of self-interest. As a result, RCT sometimes attempts
89
to explain too much – any theory that tries to explain everything may in the end explain nothing,
since there are no standards concerning what can be introduced into the model.
If combined with other approaches, RCT can prove to be useful in sociological theory. While it
is not the most common sociological approach, it has active proponents who have developed
many interesting ideas and many testable hypotheses.
 Know George Homan perspective on rational choice theory
 Understand Peter Blau perspective in rational choice theory
 Understand James Coleman perspective on rational choice theory
 Learn about critiques of social exchange theory
6.3 GEORGE HOMANS
90
Exchange theory has its roots in behaviorism and rational choice theory. Behaviorism, taken
from psychology, is concerned with how behavior is modified by its consequences, particularly
how rewards and costs act as incentives or disincentives for various forms of behavior. Rational
choice theory, which is derived from neoclassical economics, focuses on how actors seek to
achieve their ends or goals in the face of limited resources and institutions. From this
perspective, actors act purposefully to maximize their utility by rationally deciding upon courses
of action appropriate for their resources within the context of various social institutions, which
encourage or discourage various courses of action. These two theories were influential in the
early stages of exchange theory.
The father of exchange theory, George Homans (1910 - 1989), dealt primarily with the
psychological principles underlying social behavior. Although psychology was concerned
primarily with individual behavior, Homans felt that the rules governing individual behavior
were sufficient to explain all of social behavior. At the heart of his theory was the idea that
people acted to maximize their rewards in their social action.
Thus, the act of maximization usually involved an exchange with at least one other person,
although this exchange need not be-and usually was not-monetarily based, but rather was the
exchange of approval or disapproval, reward or punishment. Thus, the various ways in which
actors may mutually reinforce various forms of behavior explain the hybridity of social action.
Homans developed a number of propositions that help explain social behavior, taken by and
large from behaviorism and rational choice. Taken together, Homans's theory creates an actor
who is a rational profit-seeker, where profit may be considered anything that is viewed as
positive for the actor, including the approval or positive reinforcement of others. The actor is
rational to the extent that she/he chooses courses of action that have the greatest likelihood of
producing desired results. Homans was criticized for not taking fully into account mental states,
and for not being able to adequately explain large-scale social structures.
91
6.4 PETER BLAU
Peter Blau (1918-2002) also developed a version of exchange theory. Much like Homans, he
attempted to use the rules that govern the relations between individuals and groups as the basis
for understanding social structures.
Blau developed a four-stage sequence that detailed the movement from "personal exchange
transactions" through "differentiation of status and power" on to the "legitimization and
organization," and into "opposition and change," thus detailing how "exchange" can lead to both
social structures and social change. Blau also roots his actors in the rewards and penalties
involved in social interaction, but gives more importance to social structures that emerge from
interaction between actors.
Blau felt that these social structures could affect the process of interaction itself. Blau also
pushed the boundaries of exchange theory by dealing with two kinds of organizations-both those
that were emergent from exchange and formal organizations, established to achieved specific
objectives, such as firms or political parties. Lastly, Blau recognized the difference between large
scale, complex social structures and small groups and asserted that different rules do in fact
govern these collectivities. Social structures were governed by norms and values. He thought the
"value consensus" within large collectivities was a form of indirect exchange among actors,
actors who would otherwise not frequently exchange with every other member in the society or
community.
92
6.5 JAMES COLEMAN
In sociology, the main proponent of rational choice theory has been James Coleman (1931-
1995). Because of Coleman's focus on social theory as an agent of social change, he believes that
the appropriate level for social analysis is at the micro, agent level. Coleman believes that
individuals act purposively towards their desired goals, usually acting to maximize their utility,
with their goals and utilities shaped by values or preferences. Although he admits that actors are
not always rational, he feels his predictions would be the same regardless of their rationality.
While Coleman focuses on the micro-to-macro link, the movement from individual-level
behavior to the behavior of a system, he was also concerned with the macro-to-micro connection,
or the ways in which structures shape behavior, and the micro-to-micro link, or how the behavior
of individuals affects the behavior of other individuals. Three weaknesses in this approach are
apparent:
(1) It privileges the micro-to-macro issue, and thus does not pay enough attention to the other
linkages;
(2) It ignores the macro-to-macro issue; and
(3) The causal arrows flow in only one direction, thus underestimating both feedback within
relationships and the dialectical relationships between levels.
Coleman attempts to build from micro-level action into macro-level phenomena, but doing so in
a way in which the conception of the actor remains constant across various macro-level
phenomena. Coleman sees the granting of authority and rights from one individual to another as
a basic building block in macro-level phenomena. This subordination creates a "structure" rather
than just two interacting individuals, thus allowing for the possibility that individuals might
maximize the interests of others, or of a group. Coleman uses a similar perspective in trying to
93
explain more chaotic macro-level phenomena, which result from the unilateral transfer of control
of an individual's action from one individual to another. Because the transfer is unilateral, the
careful balancing act between individuals does not occur, and a stable system equilibrium does
not emerge.
Other systems are stable because norms develop. For Coleman, norms are created when
individuals give up control over their own behavior but gain some control over others in the form
of the rules governing behavior. Thus, these individuals see some purpose in regulating behavior
in some way. Coleman believed that norms were effective only to the extent that a consensus
existed that some individuals have the right to control the behavior of others and that a
mechanism existed to enforce the consensus. Norms, then, are macro-level phenomena that
emerge from purposive micro-level interactions.
Coleman distinguishes between individual actors, who wish to maximize their individual
interests, and corporate actors, who act on the behalf of some group or collectivity. Within any
collectivity, both may be acting simultaneously, leading to resistance to the authority of the
collectivity. Because of the importance of collectivities to modern life, Coleman sees a shift from
primordial structures, such as families, towards corporate structures, understanding that the
ramifications of cross-purposes that exist between individual and corporate actors are crucial for
rational choice theory.
Ultimately, Coleman wishes to move away from homo sociologic us, or a view of actors and
action as structurally dependent, and towards homo economics, a view of actors who have the
ability to act both in cooperation with, and despite of, structures.
6.6 CRITIQUE OF SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
94
Social exchange theory can be examined and criticized at two levels of analysis.
The first level pertains to the treatment of human behavior or social life as exchange; the second
to the reduction of social interaction or ‘exchange’ to economic transaction or a psychological
process.
At the first level, contemporary social exchange theory is far from being fully original and novel.
Many exchange theorists, knowingly or (more often) not, just restate some classical sociological
ideas, notably those of Simmel, and to that extent their theory might be designated ‘rational
choice crossed with classical sociology’. For instance, Simmel posits that many interpersonal
relations can be interpreted as exchange, that the latter is the “purest and most developed kind of
social interaction based on reciprocity” to the effect “every interaction is an exchange” and is
founded on the “scheme of giving and returning equivalence.”
It is curious that many of modern exchange theorists seem either unaware of the origins or
anticipations of their theory in classical sociology—thus appearing as if trying to‘discover
America’ again--or are prone to disregard these in favor of those from neoclassical economics or
behavioral psychology. As some of its adherents admit, most of social exchange theory
“combines roots in behaviorism [...] with concepts and principled borrowed from
microeconomics” (Cook, 2000, p. 687), a combination that virtually excludes relevant
sociological and anthropological ideas as incongruent. For example, economic and psychological
versions of exchange theory hardly contain relevant references to classical sociological (and
anthropological) works, including even those of Simmel and Weber early ‘rational choice’
sociologists (Kiser and Hechter 1998).
Contrast this negligence with their numerous references to (neo)classical economics (e.g.
Smith,Bentnam, Marshall, Edgeworth, etc.) and behavioral psychology (e.g. Skinner). In one
respect, social exchange theory tends to ground itself in standard and partly discredited economic
concepts and models like homo economics, self-interest, profit, utility maximization, cost-benefit
calculation, complete information, cognition, and foresight, etc. In another, it places itself in the
equally compromised behaviorist frame of reference, e.g. ‘Skinner’s box’ (Deutsch, 1971), with
its reliance on the operant psychology of stimuli, responses, mutual reinforcements, rewards and
punishments, etc. The first applies to rational choice models of exchange, second to behavioral
95
ones, though a synthesis mixing both is found in many exchange theorists starting with Homans
and Emerson.
Modern exchange theory cum a mix of behaviorism and microeconomics justifies its disregard of
sociological ideas on meta-theoretical or doctrinaire grounds that their holist or cultural crust is
incompatible with its individualist, utilitarian and behaviors core.
It neglects or dismisses the classical sociological-anthropological conception of generalized,
rule-governed’(Weber’s expression) and symbolic social exchange (e.g. Durkheim, Mauss,
Malinowski) in favor of that of restricted, normatively independent, and pseudo-market
exchanges.
The issue is not ether which conception is more adequate but the disjuncture of an ostensibly
sociological theory with the tradition of sociology and its curious continuity with (and borrowing
from) orthodox economics and behaviorism. Still, this path makes the modern exchange
paradigm appear less adequate as a sociological (or social psychological) theory than perhaps
would have been the case if the other route were followed. In particular, admittedly “one
limitation of [social exchange theory] is the relative inattention to issues of cultural context and
cross-cultural variations in the norms and rules that regulate social exchange. Ironically, this is
the strength of early studies of social exchange within anthropology” (Cook, 2000, 688).
What prominent exchange theorists (Emerson) call the ‘economic analysis of noneconomic
social situations” as the presumed different specific of their theory transforms the latter into a
particular subtype of the rational choice model (Coleman, 1990; Cook, 2000; Macy and Flache,
1995), though some of those instrumental in this transformation (Blau, 1994) recently reject this
view.
Admittedly, rational choice models, as originating in standard micro-economics,
“form the basis” (Cook, 2000, p. 687) for social exchange theory. In conjunction with this
economic basis, the latter has also evolved into a sort of sub-field of behavioral or operant
psychology in Emerson-Homans’ formulations, amid some misgivings (Coleman, 19) favoring
an exclusively rational choice model. In either case, like most of the rational choice model, social
96
exchange theory is, for its viability and validity, subservient to or ‘parasitic’ on these two
sociologically extraneous and alien paradigms rather than being a truly sociological endeavor.
Consequently, it stands and falls with utilitarian economic theory and psychological
behaviorism, as partly discredited or revised paradigms even within their own fields.
In this sense, exchange theory (to quote Schumpeter’s comment on welfare economics) ‘only
revives Benthamite [and the Skinnerian] tradition.’ That social exchange theory’s proclivity for
economic-behavioral roots and formulations vs. sociological-anthropological ones is dubious is
elaborated below. Notably, the flaws of its economic and behavioral versions canbe exposed by
comparing and contrasting with them the exchange theory presented, anticipated, or inspired by
classical sociology/anthropology. So, this is not a critique of social exchange theory as such but
only of its economic-behaviorist variants.
6.7 SUMMARY
Rational choice theory adopts a methodological individualist position and attempts to explain all
social phenomena in terms of the rational calculations made by self-interested individuals.
Rational choice theory sees social interaction as social exchange, modelled on economic action.
People are motivated by the rewards and costs of actions and by the profits that they can make.
Some rational choice theorists have seen rationality as a result of psychological conditioning.
Others have adopted the position that it is simply necessary to assume that individuals act as if
they were completely rational. The problem of collective action poses great difficulties for
rational choice theory, which cannot explain why individuals join many kinds of groups and
associations. The problem of social norms, the other aspect of the Hobbesian problem of order,
also poses difficulties. Rational choice theories cannot explain the origins of social norms,
especially those of altruism, reciprocity, and trust. The problem of social structure is a feature of
methodological individualism, rather than rational choice theory per se, but it creates difficulties
97
for the theories considered. Solutions to this problem have been in terms of the unintended
consequences of individual action.
Describing the decisions made by individuals as rational and utility maximizing may seem to be
a tautological explanation of their behavior that provides very little new information. While there
may be many reasons for a rational choice theory approach, two are important for the social
sciences. First, assuming humans make decisions in a rational rather than a stochastic manner
implies that their behavior can be modeled and thus predictions can be made about future
actions. Second, the mathematical formality of rational choice theory allows social scientists to
derive results from their models that may have otherwise not been seen, and to submit these
theoretical results for empirical verification. Despite these benefits, there is nothing about
rational choice theory that tells scholars that they should reject other methods of investigating
questions about the economy and society, such as the sociological determination of individual
tastes.
a. What is George Homan perspective on rational choice theory
b. Discuss Peter Blau perspective in rational choice theory
c. Explain James Coleman perspective on rational choice theory
d. Discuss the critiques of social exchange theory
6.9 IMPORTANT
Describing the decisions made by individuals as rational and utility maximizing may seem to be
a tautological explanation of their behavior that provided very little new information. While there
may be many reasons for a rational choice theory approach, two are important for the social
98
sciences. First, assuming humans make decisions in a rational, rather than stochastic manner
implies that their behavior can be modeled and thus predictions can be made about future
actions. Describing the decisions made by individuals as rational and utility maximizing may
seem to be a tautological explanation of their behavior that provides very little new information.
While there may be many reasons for a rational choice theory approach, two are important for
the social sciences. First, assuming humans make decisions in a rational rather than a stochastic
manner implies that their behavior can be modeled and thus predictions can be made about future
actions. Second, the mathematical formality of rational choice theory allows social scientists to
derive results from their models that may have otherwise not been seen, and to submit these
theoretical results for empirical verification. Despite these benefits, there is nothing about
rational choice theory that tells scholars that they should reject other methods of investigating
questions about the economy and society, such as the sociological determination of individual
tastes.
6.10 REFERENCES
 Abella, Alex (2008). Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the
American Empire. New York: Harcourt.
 Allingham, Michael (2002). Choice Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, ISBN 978-
0192803030.
 Anand, P. (1993)."Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk", Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 Amadae, S.M.(2003). Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational
Choice Liberalism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Arrow, Kenneth J. ([1987] 1989). "Economic Theory and the Hypothesis of Rationality," in
The New Palgrave: Utility and Probability, pp. 25-39.
 Bicchieri, Cristina (1993). Rationality and Coordination. Cambridge University Press
 Bicchieri, Cristina (2003). “Rationality and Game Theory”, in The Handbook of Rationality,
The Oxford Reference Library of Philosophy, Oxford University Press.
 Downs, Anthony (1957). "An Economic Theory of Democracy." Harper.
 Coleman, James S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory
99
6.12 FURTHER READINGS
 • Lawrence E. Blume and David Easley (2008). "rationality," The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics , 2nd Edition. Abstract." by Abstract] & pre-publication copy.
• Amartya Sen (2008). "rational behaviour," The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
 Susanne Lohmann (2008). "rational choice and political science,"The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition.Abstract.
 Peter Hedström and Charlotta Stern (2008). "rational choice and sociology," The New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
 Gary S. Becker (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago.
Description and scroll to chapter-preview links.
 Milton Friedman (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, pp. 15, 22, 31.
LECTURE SEVEN
7.0 THE FEMINIST APPROACH
7.1 INTRODUCTION TO FEMINIST THEORY
Feminist theory is one of the most progressive and dynamic modes of literary theory.
However, there is no precise definition of feminist theory.
In the most general sense, feminist theory serves to promote female identity, argue for women’s
rights, and promote the writings of women.
As a literary theory, feminist theory critiques the structures within cultures and societies which
organizes sexual and gender identities as an opposition between men and women.
Feminist theory offers critiques of male centered modes of thought and often concentrates its
attentions upon female authors and the experiences of women.
100
Feminist theory also closely examines the role of women in the development of popular culture,
explores the question of whether a particular female language can be said to exist, and considers
the construction and meanings of different notions of womanhood and gender roles throughout
history.
What is known as “French feminism” positions the identity of “women” as being a radical
political, cultural and social force that serves to reject and subvert assumptions linked to male
discourse and masculine forces of political power.
A number of feminist theorists reject a number of the fundamental notions of psychoanalysis and
contend that such is male biased, anti women and patriarchal. It can be argued that there is no
such thing as feminist theory per se, rather feminist theory is grounded not in any sort of singular
theory but linked to a variety of different literary theories
 Learn about the feminist approach and functionalism
 Learn about of feminist approach and conflict
 Know about critique of feminist theory
7.3 THE FEMINIST APPROACH AND CONFLICT

101
The genealogy of feminist and conflict theory naturally comes as a hybrid phenomenon.
Feminist peace and conflict theory is nurtured by a variety of disciplines and methodologies.
As is symptomatic for feminist studies, the questioning of normative standards is grounded in

women’s epistemology.
However the consequences of this silencing and the possible solutions for a change is largely
divided in an understanding of essentialist‘female nature’ and a construction based
understanding of gender as a discursive practice.
For a feminist theory on peace the analysis of war and conflict is essential.
The variety of approaches range from historical accounts of women in war to the psychological
scrutinizing of gendered up bringing of children.
Critical writings by women in liberation movements in Latin America, Africa and Asia as well as
the critique on western feminism by working class, Black and lesbian scholars has further shaped
the discussion.
Feminist Peace and Conflict Theory reflects on the need of visibility of women in conflicts and
has led to a broader understanding of security issues. it introduced the interconnectedness of all
forms of violence: domestic, societal, state based and inter-state and its gendered dimension. It
critically discussed the collaboration of the ‘Beautiful Soul’
(Jean Bethke Elshtain, 1987) in the machinery of violence.
The slogan of the Western nineteen-sixties’ women’s movement: ‘The personal is political’ can
still be seen as the common ground for feminist approch to transform normative legitimization of
the use of violence.
7.4 THE FEMINIST APPROACH AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

102
Feminist versions of symbolic interaction theory focus on gender as an ongoing accomplishment
that emerges during interaction processes, both between and within the sexes. This perspective is
succinctly captured in West & Zimmerman's term “doing gender,” which refers to the work done
during interactions in order to constantly recreate the partners' sense of their own and the other's
gender Gender is an “emergent feature of social situations” not a static feature of structure or set
of individual-level traits.
Gender is “omnirelevant” in that any action can be interpreted as exemplifying it . Given the
taken-for-granted view that there are two and only two sexes, and everyone belongs in (only) one
of them, people characterize self and others by sex (“gender attribution”) and then interpret and
respond to virtually any kind of behavior according to its normative gender “appropriateness.”
The nature of masculinity and femininity varies, but the notion that men and women are
fundamentally different does not. People are constantly creating the sense of gender difference
and defining self and others through that lens West & Fenstermaker assert: “persons engaged in
virtually any activity can hold themselves accountable and be held accountable for their
performance … as women or as men … ” and will be legitimated or discredited accordingly. A
major corollary is that, while the specific relevance of gender is always contingent upon the
interaction context in which behavior occurs , it is no less relevant to single-sex than to cross-sex
interactions .
“Doing gender” not only (re)produces gender difference, it (re)produces gender inequality. One
very important medium through which gender-construction work occurs is conversation.
Numerous analyses of male-female conservation and language usage have been conducted. They
conclude that conversation between men and women reinforces gender inequality, primarily
because “the definition of what is appropriate conversation becomes men's choice. What part of
the world [they] … maintain the reality of, is his choice …” Men dominate conversations;
women work hard to keep them going; women use verbal and body language in ways that
weaken their ability to assert themselves and, therefore, reduce their power
Another major mechanism by which gender inequality is reproduced through interaction is

scripting . The social scripts for many tasks are specifically associated with gender, and people
103
“do gender” as part and parcel of doing them. Fenstermaker Berk , also ) shows how the division
of household labor, which numerous studies demonstrate is highly inequitable, provides the
opportunity for both spouses to “do gender” and reinforce their own and their partner's gendered
identities. Hochschild develops the concept of “emotional labor,” which refers to the need to hide
or fake one's feelings in order to please others, in discussing the gendered scripts associated with
many traditionally female jobs. Kasper expands upon this concept, seeing it as integral to the
scripts for female behavior in a variety of interaction contexts and as functioning to deny women
an “integrated autonomous identity of their own” . In turn, this impedes women's ability to
achieve in the public sphere.
Schur uses an offshoot of symbolic interactionism, labeling theory, to demonstrate that

femaleness constitutes a devalued and stigmatized master status that results in women being
selectively perceived and reacted to primarily in terms of stereotypes about femaleness .This
leads to objectification of women, or their treatment as things rather than as persons, which
allows others to treat them in degrading and exploitative ways. The result is a self-fulfilling
prophecy, whereby women come to see themselves as inferior and to suffer from low self-
esteem, passivity, in-group hostility, and identification with their (male) oppressors.
In an application of George Herbert Mead's concepts, Ferguso argues that men possess the power
to define both specific situations and the generalized other. Women, therefore, “are defining
themselves by reference to standards that brand them as inferior” thereby undermining their self-
identity and producing self-blame for their problems. In addition, powerlessness forces women to
become highly adept at taking the role of the (male) other, anticipating male wants in order to
avoid negative sanctions; it prompts women to please, flatter, and acquiesce to men for the same
reason). The result is that male power is buttressed.
Feminist versions of symbolic interactionism focus on the microlevel processes by which gender
differences and inequality are constantly (re)created in everyday life. By demonstrating that both
cross- and same-sex interactions normally entail “doing gender,” they suggest that gender is a
fundamental feature and outcome of all interaction, one that should comprise a central
component of general interaction theories.
104
7.5 CRITIQUE OF FEMINIST THEORY
Women Ignored. One general line of criticism of feminists is that women are absent from the
social analyses and social world of classical sociology. The language and analysis of classical
sociologists is that of men, male activities and experiences, and the parts of society dominated by
males. Marx, Weber, and Durkheim were typical of nineteenth century European writers who
assumed that the social world was primarily that of male activities.
One aspect of the long history of modern, urban, industrial society was the development of a
separation between the public and private spheres. These had not always been separated in
traditional societies, although there was often a sex-based division of labour and male
dominance. But there is no doubt that with the development of capitalism, cities, and industry, a
public sphere dominated by men and male activities developed. Women generally became
restricted to the private sphere of household and fam ily, and had limited involvement in
political, economic, or even social public life. While some women were involved in more public
activities, there were movements to restrict the participation of women in public life – for
example, factory legislation an d the family wage.
105
In order to understand some of the difficulties women faced in this era, some of the details of the
situation of women should be considered. First, women in late nineteenth century England were
not recognized as individuals in either the legal or the liberal theoretical sense. Men still held
formal power over the rest of the family, and women were mostly excluded from the public
sphere. Mill and Taylor, along with some early United States feminists such as Elizabeth Cady
Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, argued that the equality of women required full citizenship for
women. This would include giving women enfranchisement. After 1865, when Mill was in the
English Parliament, he fought for women's suffrage. He also fought "to amend the laws that gave
husband s control over their wives' money and property." He also supported the campaign for
birth control information to be available, and was active in other campaigns that were aimed at
assisting women and children. (Eisenstein, p. 128).
While there were various feminist movements, formal equality for women did not come until
much later. In Canada, women did not have the right to vote in federal elections until 1918,
although the franchise was extended to women two years earlier in the Prairie provinces. Quebec
women did not receive the vote in provincial elections until 1940. Property ownership also rested
with men through most of the nineteenth century, with changes that allowed property purchasers
to become owners, regardless of sex , coming between 1872 and 1940. "By 1897 in English
Canada and 1931 in Quebec, a wife employed outside the home was allowed to retain her wages"
(Burt, p. 214). Also note that in Canada it was not until the 1969 amendments to the Criminal
Code that sales of contraceptives became legal, or that abortions became legal.
In Canada, there is now formal equality in most areas of social life, with women and men having
the same legal rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the 1982 Constitution
Act states that "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability" Many feminists would argue though that this is only formal equality, not
true equality.
106
7.6 SUMMARY
Feminist theory is one of the major contemporary sociological theories, which analyzes the status
of women and men in society with the purpose of using that knowledge to better women's lives.
Feminist theorists also question the differences between women, including how race, class,
ethnicity, sexuality, nationality, and age intersect with gender. Contemporary sociologist Patricia
Hill Collins is known throughout the field for developing, deploying, and popularizing the
concept of intersectionality in her theory and research. Feminist theory is most concerned with
giving a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have contributed to society.
a. Discuss the feminist approach and functionalism
b. What have you learnt about feminist approach and conflict

107
c. Discuss the critiques of feminist theory
7.8 IMPORTANT
Feminism can be defined as a social movement and an ideology in support of the idea that a
larger share of scarce resources should be allocated to women.
Feminist believe that women should enjoy the same rights in society as men and that should
share equity in society’s opportunities.
Feminist sociological theory represents an attempt to give a voice to women and female
perspective.
Feminist sociological theory is generally critical of the traditional scientific sociological

approach that stresses a commitment to neutrality, objectivity, and empirical research.
There are many criticisms of feminists.
One is that they leave themselves wide open to attack because they themselves are very biased in
their approach.
Second, although a commitment to empirical research is not a must in designs of social theory;
relying on such techniques as oral testimony and the analysis of such content a diaries risk a lack
of objectivity and bias. When an individual is asked for his or her story, it is always biased from
his or her perspective.
108
Fifth criticism of the feminism comes from within feminist sociological theory itself. The fact
that there is such a great variety of sociological feminist theories represents a clear lack of
consensus among feminists as to the best means to go about fighting sexism, discrimination, and
oppression.
Sexism and discrimination exists in nearly all social institutions.
Religion is a long time perpetuator of gender inequality- like Catholic Church forbids females
from being priest. Giving a voice to women remains feminist sociological theory’s greatest
contribution to the field of sociology specifically and society in general.
7.9 REFERENCES
 Chodorow, Nancy J., Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory (Yale University Press: 1989,
1991)
 Brabeck, M. and Brown, L. (with Christian, L., Espin, O., Hare-Mustin, R., Kaplan, A.,
Kaschak, E., Miller, D., Phillips, E., Ferns, T., and Van Ormer, A.) 'Feminist theory and
psychological practice', in J. Worell and N. Johnson (eds.) Shaping the future of feminist
psychology: Education, research, and practice (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association, 1997), pp.15-35
 Gilligan, Carol, 'In a Different Voice: Women's Conceptions of Self and Morality' in Harvard
Educational Review (1977)
 Evolutionary Feminism
 Feminist theory website (Center for Digital Discourse and Culture, Virginia Tech)
109
 Feminist Theories and Anthropology by Heidi Armbruster
 The Radical Women Manifesto: Socialist Feminist Theory, Program and Organizational
Structure (Seattle: Red Letter Press, 2001)
 Pembroke Center for Teaching and Research on Women, Brown University
 Feminist Theory Papers, Brown University
 The Feminist eZine - An Archive of Historical Feminist Articles
 Women, Poverty, and Economics- Facts and Figures
“Lexicon of Debates”. Feminist Theory: A Reader. 2nd Ed. Edited by Kolmar, Wendy and
Bartowski, Frances. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. 42-60.
GLOSSARY
1. Symbolic interactionism- is a sociological perspective that is influential in many areas

of the sociological discipline. It is particularly important in micro sociology and social
psychology. Symbolic interactionism is derived from American pragmatism and
particularly from the work of George Herbert Mead.
2. Functionalism Feminist theory- is the extension of feminism into theoretical or

philosophical discourse. It aims to understand the nature of gender inequality. It examines
women's social roles, experience, interests, and feminist politics in a variety of fields,
such as anthropology and sociology, communication, psychoanalysis, economics,
literature, education, and philosophy
110
3. Theory- is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A
critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions
that can be tested.
4. Rational choice theory- is a framework for understanding and often formally modeling
social and economic behavior. Rationality, interpreted as "wanting more rather than less
of a good", is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in
microeconomic models and analysis and appears in almost all economics textbook
treatments of human decision-making.
5. Conflict Theory-A theory propounded by Karl Marx that claims society is in a state of
perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources. Conflict theory holds that
social order is maintained by domination and power, rather than consensus and
conformity.
111

Asc 200

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asc 200

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF VIRTUAL AND ODEL

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES - DEPARTMENT OF

ASC 200: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL THEORY

WRITTEN BY: EDITED BY:

DR. KIPRUTO TUITOEK GLADYS NYACHIEO

Copyright © Kenyatta University, 2014

All Rights Reserved

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY PRESS

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL THEORY MODULE……………...6

2.1 Introduction to functionalism……….……………………………………………………32

2.2 Lecture objectives……………………………………………………………………..…32

2.3 Key assumption and arguments of functionalism theories……………………………….33

2.4 Emile Durkheim and Functionalisms……………………………………………………..37

2.5 Talcott Parsons and Functionalism………………………………………………………..40

2.7 Assessment and criticisms of Functionalism…………………………………………….43

2.9 Self test questions………………………………………………………………..…….….46

2.12 Further reading……………………………………………………………..……………47

3.0 CONFLICT THEORY…………………………………………………………………48.

3.1 Introductions to conflict theory…………………………………………………………..48

3.2 Lecture objectives………………………………………………………………………..49

3.3 Basic assumptions and arguments of the conflict perspective…………………………..49

3.4 Karl Marx………………………………………………………………………………..51

3.5 Ralf Dahrendorf…………………………………………………………………………57

3.6 Assessment and criticisms of Conflict theory…………………………………………..58

3.8 Self test questions…………………………………………………………………….….60

3.11 Further reading…………………………………………………………………..………62

4.0 SOCIAL ACTION THEORY……………………………………………………….…….63

4.2 Lecture objectives……………………………………………………………………………64

4.3 Max Weber……………………………………………………………….…………………..64

4.5 Self test questions………………………………………………………………..………..…68

4.7 Further reading……………………………………………………………………………….69

5.0 SYMBOLIC INTERATIONALISM………………………………………………………71

5.1 Introduction to symbolic interaction…………………………………………………………71

5.2 Lecture objectives…………………………………………………………………..………..72

5.3George Herbert Mead…………………………………………………………………..……72

5.4 Herbert Blummer…………………………………………………………………..……..…75

5.5 Ervin Goffman………………………………………………………………….……..……80

5.7 Self test questions………………………………………………………………………...….83

5.10 Further reading………………………………………………………………………….….84

6.0 THEORIES OF RATIONAL CHOICE/EXCHAGE THEORY……………….…88.

6.2 Lecture objectives……………………………………………………………………….89

6.4 George Homans…………………………………………………………………………89

6.5 Peter Blau…………………………………………………………………………….…90

6.6 James Colemal…………………………………………………………………………...91

6.7 Critique of social exchange theory………………………………………………………93

7.7 Self test questions…………………………………………………………………….….97

7.10 Further reading…………………………………………………………………………99

7.0 THE FEMINIST APPROACH………………………………………………………99…

7.1 Introduction to feminist theory…………………………………………………………99

7.2 Lecture objectives………………………………………………………………………100..

7.3 The feminist approach and functionalism………………………………………………100

7.4 The feminist approach and conflict…………………………………………………..…101

7.5 Critique of Feminist theory……………………………………………………………..104

7.7 Self test questions…………………………………………………………………….….106

7.10 Further reading………………………………………………………………………….108

OBJECTIVES OF THE MODULE:

1.0 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

1.11NTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

1.2 LECTURE OBJECTIVES

By the end of this lecture, the learner will be able to

The Catalog of Experiences to be explicated

The Openness of the Soul as the New Authority