theories of sociology essay

theories of sociology essay

Exploring Key Theories in Sociology: A Comprehensive Analysis

1. Introduction to Sociology Theories

Sociological theories have three core components: concepts, propositions (statements), and logic that links the two. Together, the three components allow us to communicate sociological theories. Used as it should be, a good theory can help scientists to predict the future and to understand new and relevant data, and a good theory also allows us to make our own decisions that are necessary for us to lead our lives. Early sociological theories developed to address changes in social problems. The first generation of theories is largely incompatible explanations of social stability and social change, and each theory refers society elements which rig together forms it. These were the traditional functional theory and the conflict theory.

The origin of sociology is from the work of Auguste Comte, who gave the subject its name and is often considered its father. The first person to offer a course with the term “sociology” was the sociologist Antoine Constantin in the form of an experimental home study course which he founded in 1988. Lastly, Emile Durkheim, Marx’s former pupil, developed the study of sociology and led the development of sociology into a separate discipline. Durkheim focused more on how modern state came to be and by what men live together in relative rumor. He strove to identify the changing principles of moral cohesion in the story of these evolving groups.

2. Structural Functionalism and its Concepts

Central Concepts Associated with Structural Functionalism Emile Durkheim helped establish structural functionalism as a major sociological theory. He and Talcott Parsons outlined the concepts that have driven the theory and the research associated with it. The main idea of structural functionalism is that any social institution can only be understood in terms of its primary function or purpose in a society. Thus, it claims that there is a societal need for all the elements of a society. Unless an activity is functional – that is, it fills a social need and thus maintains stability – it is unlikely to last very long. Institutions can take on dysfunction, wherein positive functions create negative consequences, although that will usually be redirected to secondary functions – that is, unintended consequences. Factory owners, for instance, offer care for their employees by removing fish bones. But avoiding food poisoning at work is not their primary intention. The primary intention is the employment of the employees; the offer disservice of removing fish bones has no ill for them.

While structural functionalism offers a particularly broad account, it overlooks and oversimplifies conflict between groups in that society. Its early proponents assume that every institution – the home, government, schools – have more consensus than conflict per se. In recent years, structural functionalism has found a resurgence in sociological thinking, and structural functionalists are exploring the potential of cybernetics, the sociology of self-help groups, social support research, and the effect of allostatic load and coping on health.

Structural functionalism is a sociological paradigm that offers an extremely broad and robust account of social structure and social change. It was the dominant social theory in the 1940s and 1950s until it was supplanted by conflict theory. In this paradigm, social institutions are analyzed as they are structured to maintain stability and social order in societies. This approach looks at the facts of an institution: what does an institution do? How does it serve a social function? Its proponents use functional analysis to understand how a social institution hinders or fosters social stability. They also investigate the consequences and not the intentions of social action.

3. Conflict Theory and its Application

More recently, however, several critics of traditional macro theories have emerged. Thus, we have critical or radical perspectives, which can be Marxian, neo-Marxian, non-Marxist, or post-modern. Their criticism is generally based on their shared belief in and commitment to an emancipatory approach to sociology. It is against this backdrop that we explicate the Marxist’s two-fold view of life. There are two components to Marxism. The first is an analysis of capitalist society. The second is a project to extract this analysis from the social sciences and put it to work as a tool of and guide to revolutionary political action. Consequently, the phenomenon of power in Marxist philosophy is the state, and the ultimate power holder is the ruling class. The application of this perspective to the understanding of African governance is critical journalism, expose-writing by oppositional political parties, mass speaking, and the use of certain social organs of the state to achieve revolutionary objectives.

Conflict theory is a macro theory. Macro theories are theories which best fit the study of massive numbers of people (typically whole nations). There are traditional macro theories. These theories state that for the most part, the majority of people respond to the majority. In other words, the norm is the guiding factor. Other examples of macro theories include structural-functionalism, modernization theory, world-systems theory, resource mobilization, and the rational choice approach.

4. Symbolic Interactionism and its Role in Society

Developed by George Herbert Mead, the concept of the “I” and the “me” is at the center of symbolic interactionism. According to Mead, the “me” is the identity that you believe other people around you perceive. This is similar to the concept of the generalized other, or the idea that we all create our self-concept based on the generalized norms of the larger society. On the other hand, the “I” is the more impulsive, self-centered component of the self that acts based on the feedback received from the “me”. This is similar to the psychoanalytic concept of the id, or the part of the subconscious that guides impulsive actions. Whether it is the “I”, the “me”, or the generalized other, however, Mead and subsequent symbolic interactionists argue that the self is derived from interaction and feedback from other members of a particular social group.

While some sociological theories focus on structure, systems, and institutions, others take a more micro view and explore people’s day-to-day interactions. Symbolic interactionism, which is often associated with the work of George Herbert Mead, focuses on how people make meaning. According to this approach, symbols are at the center of society, as people develop shared symbolic meanings and then engage with one another based on those meanings. Most symbolic interactionists argue that these meanings can change and be negotiated through interaction and collective effort.

5. Contemporary Sociological Theories and Debates

It would seem that the task is long overdue for a serious rethinking of our enterprise in microsociological, that is, person-to-person terms, to act intentionally and with innovative originality. According to Sartre, people seek to order and organize their day-to-day experiences, making the most out of everyday existence. The simplicity of this definition can conceal the complexity of the processes involved, especially in terms of what we conceptualize as the self. On a societal level, economic growth offers fulfillment to the members of the community, as advances in technology offer gains in productivity for the collective entity. If we relate this notion to service activities, we may consider levels of economic satisfaction as offering a “balance” between service satisfaction gained from providing a service and the ideas of fulfillment people have regarding economic activities. This kind of relationship exists at both macroeconomic and individual levels. Before it is too late, the discipline of sociology must find such a common purpose.

Contemporary sociological theories have sparked numerous debates. One of the first tasks for contemporary sociological theory was to correct or challenge the founding fathers. Writing amidst the various new directions that led to criticisms of the classics, Alvin Gouldner viewed sociology as a discipline confronting a crisis of legitimacy. The return to the classics which followed substantiated Talcott Parsons and made R.K. Merton “conflict theorists.” However, it did not suffice. Today, still others, standing in the 1990s, wonder whatever happened to the “power of theory.” If anyone examines a typical undergraduate textbook or class, it’s safe to say that they will not encounter much of consequence to the questions, concerns, or dynamics that are taking place in the real world. It would seem that the task is long overdue for a serious rethinking of our enterprise in microsociological, that is, person-to-person terms, to act intentionally and with innovative originality.