Sociologists determine social phenomena at different amounts and from various perspectives. From concrete interpretations to sweeping generalizations of culture and social behavior, sociologists learn from specific occasions (themicrolevel of analysis of small social patterns) to the “big picture” (themacrolevel of analysis of big social habits).

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

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


The symbolic interactionist perspective, also known as symbolic interactionism, directs sociologists to think about the symbols and details of every day life, what these symbols suggest, and how individuals interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber's assertion that people behave based on their interpretation of the meaning of these globe, the United states philosopher George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.

According to your symbolic interactionist viewpoint, people connect meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of the symbols. Verbal conversations, by which talked words serve as the predominant symbols, get this subjective interpretation specially obvious. What have a particular meaning the “sender,” and, during effective communication, they ideally have a similar meaning for the “receiver.” In other terms, terms are not fixed “things”; they might require intention and interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the planet around them. Of course, anything can serve as a symbol so long as it means one thing beyond itself. Written music serves as an illustration. The black colored dots and lines be more than simple marks in the web page; they relate to notes organized so concerning make musical feeling. Therefore, symbolic interactionists give severe considered to exactly how people behave, and then seek to ascertain what meanings people assign with their own actions and symbols, including to those of other people.

Start thinking about using symbolic interactionism on United states institution of marriage. Symbols may include wedding bands, vows of life‐long commitment, a white bridal gown, a marriage dessert, a Church ceremony, and flowers and music. American society attaches basic meanings to these symbols, but individuals also keep unique perceptions of exactly what these alongside symbols suggest. As an example, among the partners often see their circular marriage rings as symbolizing “never ending love,” whilst the other could see them as a mere monetary cost. Much faulty communication can result from differences in the perception of the same activities and symbols.

Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the “big image.” Easily put, symbolic interactionists may miss out the larger problems of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” (as an example, how big the diamond into the wedding ring) rather than the “forest” (for instance, the caliber of the marriage). The perspective also receives critique for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions.

Based on the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each facet of culture is interdependent and contributes to culture's functioning in general. The federal government, or state, provides education for the kids associated with the family members, which often pays taxes where the state depends to help keep it self operating. That's, your family is dependent upon the school to greatly help children grow up to have good jobs in order to raise and support their own families. Along the way, the children become legislation‐abiding, taxpaying residents, who consequently support the state. If all goes well, the elements of culture create order, security, and efficiency. If all will not get well, the areas of society then must adapt to recapture a new purchase, security, and productivity. As an example, during a financial recession having its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools provide fewer programs. Families tighten their spending plans. And a new social order, stability, and productivity occur.

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

  • Mechanical solidarity is a type of social cohesion that arises when individuals in a society maintain similar values and philosophy and engage in similar forms of work. Mechanical solidarity most frequently does occur in old-fashioned, easy societies like those where everyone else herds cattle or farms. Amish culture exemplifies mechanical solidarity.
  • In contrast, natural solidarity is a type of social cohesion that arises whenever individuals in a society are interdependent, but hold to varying values and thinking and participate in varying types of work. Organic solidarity most frequently occurs in industrialized, complex communities such those in big United states towns like New York into the 2000s.

The functionalist perspective realized its best appeal among United states sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s. While European functionalists originally centered on explaining the inner workings of social order, American functionalists centered on discovering the functions of peoples behavior. Among these US functionalist sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who divides individual functions into two kinds: manifest functions are intentional and obvious, while latent functions are unintentional rather than obvious. The manifest purpose of going to a church or synagogue, as an example, is worship within a religious community, but its latent function are to aid people learn to discern personal from institutional values. With good judgment, manifest functions become effortlessly apparent. Yet it is not necessarily the truth for latent functions, which often need a sociological method of be revealed. A sociological approach in functionalism is the consideration of this relationship between your functions of smaller parts additionally the functions of entire.

Functionalism has gotten criticism for neglecting the negative functions of a meeting such as divorce or separation. Critics also declare that the viewpoint warrants the status quo and complacency for culture's users. Functionalism will not encourage individuals to just take a working part in changing their social environment, even if such modification may gain them. Rather, functionalism sees active social modification as unwanted as the differing of culture will make up naturally for almost any conditions that may arise.

The conflict perspective, which originated mainly out of Karl Marx's writings on class struggles, gift suggestions society in an alternate light than perform some functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives. While these second perspectives focus on the positive aspects of society that donate to its security, the conflict viewpoint is targeted on the negative, conflicted, and ever‐changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists whom defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe individuals cooperate to impact social purchase, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even if this implies social revolution), and think rich and effective people force social order regarding bad and weak. Conflict theorists, for example, may interpret an “elite” board of regents increasing tuition to cover esoteric brand new programs that improve the prestige of an area university as self‐serving rather than as good for students.

Whereas United states sociologists into the 1940s and 1950s generally speaking ignored the conflict perspective and only the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw United states sociologists gain considerable desire for conflict theory. Additionally they expanded Marx's idea that the main element conflict in culture was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups when the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, financial, and so forth. Conflict theorists note that unequal teams will often have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete keenly against the other person. This constant competition between teams kinds the foundation for the ever‐changing nature of culture.

Critics of conflict perspective indicate its overly negative view of culture. The idea eventually features humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil liberties, along with other positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to manage the public, never to inherent interests in preserving society and social order.

How to cite this essay: