Impact of Sociological Theories - Essay Example

?Running Head: Impact of Sociological Theories Impact of Sociological Theories [Institute’s Impact of Sociological Theories Introduction It was in 1838, when Auguste Comte in his book Positive Philosophy, coined the term of “sociology” thus making it the youngest branch or field amongst all other recognized social sciences. Over the years, sociology has emerged as a separate and distinct field of study, which only became possible by allowing it to develop a working set of perspectives. Following are the three most important perspectives in the field of sociology, interactionism, functionalism, and conflict theory (Ferrante & Caldeira, 2010). This paper is an attempt to explore the application of sociological theories of functionalism, conflict, and interactionism on educational institutions. The paper will briefly introduce each theory, after which it would explore its application, similarities, and differences, impact of each theory on the view of individual, society, and social change. Discussion Functionalism The functionalist perspective believes in seeing the society as “functional” whole. Functionalists assume that society consists of many mutually supportive groups, which form a network in orderly manner based on agreed and predefined set of rules and regulations. Furthermore, the society has an inbuilt tendency to move towards equilibrium, which means that it tends to remain in a balanced, harmonious and stable state for as long as possible. Nevertheless, social changes do occur from time to time, which disrupt this equilibrium but the society then engages in a procedure to achieve a new equilibrium (Mulkay, 1971). Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, Robert Merton, and Emile Durkheim, who are the prominent thinkers and proponents of the functionalist school of thought, believe that each group of social institutions exists in the first place because it fulfills some certain functions (Sadovnik, 2010). Individual behavior patterns emerge because they are functionally useful. On the American frontier, there were fewer inns and not many people that the money to afford those inns. Therefore, a hospitality pattern emerged and it became the tradition of people to welcome the guests and provide them with food and shelter. The visitors would break the monotony, bring in news, and at times, help the hosts with their tasks (Mulkay, 1971). However, as the frontier settled, this pattern started to become extinct since it was no longer necessary. People had the money and more and more inns came on to the scene. This is why some critics argue that functionalists view individuals as puppets controlled by the social mechanisms and desire to maintain the “functionality” (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). More importantly, functionalists, while dealing with institutions are more likely to ask questions such as “How would this institution help in meeting the needs and wants of the society?” “To what an extent is the institutions, its theory and practices, are in line with the societal norms, values and traditions?” “Would a proposed change in the social institutions be useful in fulfilling the predetermined functions of other institutions in the society?” (Ferrante & Caldeira, 2010) Functionalists see educational institutions as an important part of the entire society to ensure that the society keeps functioning and remains operative. These institutions, especially in form of schools, keep the children from their parents for a part of the day so that they could engage in other activities (Browne, 2011). Furthermore, these institutions also provide employment to many people thus ensuring the equilibrium in the society. More importantly, educational institutions serve the purpose of engraving the societal norms and values on the hearts and minds of the children by regulating their behavior at school to the point where the children internalize them. Educational institutions also perform an important function of training people to join the labour market and ranking them in the order to their abilities and talent so that the employers could select the employees, who suit their companies and organizations (Ferrante & Caldeira, 2010). Children in schools learn the value of networking, they meet others, learn how to have friends and the basic application of concepts such relationships society and friends thus allowing them to understand other sociological concepts later in their lives. American educational institutions, specifically, ensure that children learn values such as “competition and “individualism” early in their lives so that the societal balance remains intact (Ball, 2010). Functionalists see educational institutions as glue, which holds many other groups, and institutions together; however, as mentioned under the following heading, conflict theorists believe that they serve no other purpose than maintaining the existing unjust power structure in the society (Ferrante & Ferrante-Wallace, 2008). Quite understandably, functionalists, who are a part of educational institutions, take it as a matter of pride since they are playing an important in ensuring that the society remains functional and the next generation is ready to take up the responsibilities of the former. The same is true for the people of the society who view educational institutions from the outside (Mitchell, 1998). Children who do not go to schools, colleges and universities are seen as spoiled, careless and destroying their future. However, there is great deal of esteem and respect in the hearts and minds of people about students who are high achievers and performers in their classes. Furthermore, many societies give special privileges to professors and teachers in order to encourage them to continue their “noble job” (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). Important here to note is that a functionalist would approach social change within educational institutions with the aim of making the institution more and more “functional” for the society. For example, sometime in the future, if some region experiences great shortage of people to take up blue collar jobs, the functionalist will make an attempt to tame the institutions so that create a substantial amount of people to take up those jobs as well. If China, Japan and other East Asian countries feel that their coming generation has a greater tendency towards the values of liberty, individualism, universalism, low power distance and others, then the change from the functionalist’s point of view would be to ensure that this phenomenon could be reversed (Ferrante & Caldeira, 2010). Conflict Theory Karl Marx, one of the most influential philosophers of the 19th century, is believed to the founder of this sociological perspective. Although, it was during the mid 20th century when experts such as Wright Mills, Lewis Coser and other revived his work and came with the formal conflict theory as a sociological perspective. Based on Marx’s work, conflict theorists see the society in a continuous and ongoing process of conflict and clashes between classes, races, groups, nations and others for ownership of power, income and wealth (Sadovnik, 2010). Quite clearly, it opposes the functionalist view of society, which believes that society tends to remain in equilibrium state. Where functionalists believe that society is founded on “mutually agreed principles and values”, conflict theorists believe that these principles and values are actually agreed upon by the higher social classes and the dominant groups (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). Conflict theorists view the functionalist approach as conservatives since they are obsessed with the harmonious equilibrium and blind since they fail to see that the equilibrium is actually “functional” to the dominant groups who have the control over the resources and who silence the majority for their own interests (Ferrante & Ferrante-Wallace, 2008). Conflict theorists, while examining certain social institutions, ask questions such “How these institutions have emerged while conflicting groups have tried to seek their advantage?” “How do the people in power manipulate these institutions for their own privilege?” “How can the society be made more humane, just, and equal?” Without any doubts, one the most pessimistic and debasing views about educational institutions comes from the conflict theorists, which comes as no surprise. Where functionalists see educational institutions as means to create equilibrium, harmony and equality in the society, conflict theorists believe that they serve the purpose of maintaining social inequality. Like any other institution, they see educational institutions as a tool for the rich and privileged to produce a working class and labour who could be exploited for the rest of their lives (Sadovnik, 2010). Conflict theorists believe that educational institutions do not only help in creating the labour for exploitation but it also motivates them for the same and ensures that they remain loyal, dedicated and committed to their masters who would treat them as slaves for the rest of their lives (Ferrante & Caldeira, 2010). Teachers at educational institutions have this flawed assumption that all the students in their class belong to the upper middle class or upper class of the society, therefore, they burden the children with assignments that require considerable amount of time and resources (tuitions, internet, books, and others). However, children who belong from the lower class or lower middle class of the society may have not that much time since they may have to look after the domestic matters of their family or may have to earn a portion of bread for the family (Browne, 2011). Furthermore, it is highly likely that they may also not have the resources to compete with other students who belong with rich families. Therefore, educational institutions also serve the purpose of exploitation, repression, domination and subordination of the lower class by a handful of powerful people like any other institution (Ferrante & Ferrante-Wallace, 2008). Conflict theorists and the people who are its proponents view educational institutions as a tool used by the dominant people to perpetuate the myth of equal opportunity. Educational institutions are there to create a hyper-reality that in presence of these institutions, everyone has a chance to achieve the same amount of wealth and status in the society. Therefore, towards the end of the day, if someone fails to achieve that status, wealth, or position then it is a manifestation of the shortcomings of that individual only (Mitchell, 1998). These people also realize that it is two-edged sword. Not only it ensures that the children remain in the world of false reality that they have a level playing field to achieve every that they can but it also forces parents to spend their entire lives ensuring that their children could get the chance. They continue their work and their exploitation by their masters in the hope that their children will have a better life only to know that their children also fall in the same trap (Sadovnik, 2010). Unlike the functionalists, conflict theorists view people who are associated with educational institutions, as tools or agents of the working class who have no concern about the society and the injustice, which these institutions are spreading, but their own betterment. A proponent of conflict theory would never appreciate spending thousands of dollars for putting his child to school or college education (Browne, 2011). Furthermore, a conflict theorist, while working for any educational institution would look for serious changes in the institution so that people from all classes could have the opportunity to become a part of these educational institutions (Ferrante & Caldeira, 2010). Important here to note is that any conflict theorist’s aim of a social change in the educational institutions would be to make them more just and acceptable to all classes of the society. A conflict theorist would approach change within the institution to ensure that children from all backgrounds, races, classes, genders and other demographics receive exactly the same type and quality of education. The conflict theorists would not tolerate any aspect of formal education, which favors children from any specific class (Ferrante & Ferrante-Wallace, 2008). Interactionism The interactionist perspective does suggests any grand theories of understanding society and societal institutions because interactionists base their theoretical assumptions on their image of humans rather than their image of the society because their focus remains on subjective aspects of human life. Max Weber, George H. Mead, C. H. Cooley and others who are amongst the prominent thinkers of interactionist approach concentrate upon the “interaction” amongst people and groups, which takes place with the help of symbols. A word is merely a noise and contains no meaning until and unless an agreement is reach between the societal members about its meaning and interpretation. Based on the interpretative approach, interactionists believe that society is actually a subjective reality and sociology must attempt to understand these perceptions at a micro level to understand the whole picture (Ferrante & Caldeira, 2010). Within a given society, people are not directly responding to others as “they think they are”, instead, they respond to whatever they “imagine someone else to be”. “Reality”, as we know it, does not exist out there but it is a construction of people’s minds and if a societal institution, being good or bad is not its characteristic but the perception of the person until and unless he or she changes it (Ball, 2010). Interactionist do not believe that there is nothing objective, the sun, moon, earth, stars, human being and others do exist and they will continue to exist even if there is no one to observe and report but any fact or information has no inherent meaning of itself. It gets a meaning when there is a human mind out there to provide it with a meaning (Ferrante & Ferrante-Wallace, 2008). If Interactionists are asked to look examine certain social institutions, they would ask questions about the observer or the reporter that “How did the bias of the certain person affect the current construct of reality?” “Why do those people perceive the society and its institutions as they currently do?” “What were the motivations and reasons why those people associated such meaning with the symbols?” (Mitchell, 1998) Application of interactionist theory is the most complicated out of all since interactionist would not look educational institutions at a macro level or as a whole but their interest lies in examining the specific teacher student relationships and the way these relationships are affected due to perceptions of people. Their focus remains in how teacher’s perceptions influence the student. For example, Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson, vocal proponents of interactionist school of thought conducted an experiment in the year 1968 where they conducted an IQ test with certain students of a class, after which, they identified a bunch of students who they expect will perform exceptionally well in the coming year. The researchers informed the teacher about these results and their prediction. After a year, the performance of these students did increase but what was interesting was the fact that these were students, which performed average and below average on the IQ test. Therefore, interactionists believe these are the “views” of individuals, which construct the entire institutions (Ferrante & Caldeira, 2010). An interactionist would approach social change by creating systems and mechanisms with which perceptions and views of people could be better used to performance and achievement of all stakeholders within the institution (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). References Andersen, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2007). Sociology: understanding a diverse society. Cengage Learning. Ball, S. J. (2010). Sociology of education. Routledge. Browne, K. (2011). An Introduction to Sociology. Polity. Ferrante, J., & Caldeira, C. (2010). Seeing Sociology: An Introduction. Cengage Learning. Ferrante, J., & Ferrante-Wallace, J. (2008). Sociology: a global perspective. Cengage Learning. Mitchell, T. R. (1998). Sociology of education: emerging perspectives. SUNY Press. Mulkay, M. J. (1971). Functionalism, exchange, and theoretical strategy. Taylor & Francis. Sadovnik, A. R. (2010). Sociology of Education: A Critical Reader. Taylor & Francis Group. Read More