The Three Competing Theories of Social Construction and as They Relate to the Family - Research Paper Example

Section/# The Three Competing Theories of Social Construction: A Case Study on the Family Unit and Society as they relate to the Functionalist, Conflict, and Interactionalist Theories of Sociology The family unit is one of the most basic and primitive of social constructs that exist in our world. Tracing its origins would be an exercise in futility as it has existed long before recorded history and exists in many forms and manifestations in the animal kingdom as well. At its most basic definition, a family may be described as a group that shares a common culture or background. Obviously, as science has progressed and times have changed, the definition of family has changed with it to include those entities and groups that are not defined within the traditional construct of family. As such, families on aggregate set the tone and define social structure within a given culture. Accordingly, it provides a useful vehicle to examine sociological constructs and how they affect our thinking as individuals, and as members of a group. For purposes of this essay, three sociological theories will be analyzed as they relate to the family. The theories of functionalism, conflict, and interactionism will all be weighed and analyzed as to how and to what extent they exercise influence over the family unit and the dynamics and relationships between those members within the family. Additionally, the adoption of each specific theory will be weighed against societies health if all interactions between groups and individuals were carried out within the given theory’s constructs. Firstly, this essay will examine functionalist theory as to how it molds and shapes the family unit. Functionalism may be defined as a theory that views society as a complex system whose parts ideally work together to promote cohesion, unity, solidarity, and stability (McLennan, 2011). At a macro view, this is the goal that a traditional family unit doubtless aspires. However, the social structures that impact upon functionalism are the driving force behind its power, lack of power, success, or failure. The degree of societal complexity, along with the minimalization of individual perceptions and importance further defines functionalism as a sociological theory. In short, functionalism attempts to reduce the role of the individual/group’s importance with regards to impact on society and focus upon “organs” (customs, traditions, institutions) to define the function of society as a whole. Naturally, such a progressive change would not be able to take affect if it were not for the role of the individual on the group. As such, the family would well be recognized to be one of those “organs” that works to influence society. This theory, when applied with relation to a family entity portends that the family itself will sacrifice needs, wants, and desires in order to achieve a set goal or define itself with relation to the society as a whole. Perhaps the greatest weakness of functionalism is that it minimalizes the role of the individual within the “organ” – in this case; the family. Although the entity itself develops behavioral norms, at its core, all societal units are made up of the individual. As such, championing a theory that defines society through a collective point of view is not only shortsighted but bears the risk of missing the purpose of what a family unit is likely to actually entails. At its core, families are units comprised of related individuals, or individuals who share a common ancestry or background. As such, there are commonalities that bind them together and present a mirage of a cohesive and solitary unit. However, no matter how functional the family unit, the needs, wants, desires and unique interests of the individual members are what will shape its formation more so than its identity as a unit of function. If individuals and society as a whole were to adopt the functionalist approach, the implication for the world and the future would be one of two things. Firstly, the theories put forward by the functionalist theoreticians appear to be a bit idyllic. Accordingly, because harmony and shared sacrifice are not inherent parts of human nature, it is highly unlikely that functionalism would ever be adopted on a grand scale. If it was however, it would begin to quickly degrade to a zero sum game as individuals and groups would play various iterations of the prisoner’s dilemma, working to maximize their net benefit or yield from any one given situation before defaulting on the game and on the theory. On the individual level, functionalism may work more appropriately – depending on its overall congruence with a particular belief set and world-view. Secondly, conflict theory maximizes disturbances between the individual and the group in order to attempt to explain the needs and wants of individuals/groups within society. As one of the founding fathers of conflict theory, Karl Marx, it comes as little surprise that this theory focuses on the inequality of social groups and how they define themselves with relationship to this inequality. Most prominent in the latter half of the 19th and middle half of the 20th century, conflict theory continues to maintain its relevance because it adequately describes how humans are likely to interact with each other in a societal or group environment; however, the theory has somewhat fallen from sociological broad based applications due to a number of its shortcomings – some of which will be discussed below. In its most basic explanation, conflict theory is the a theoretical explanation regarding the impacts of social, material, or political inequality of a given group. As such, conflict theory has the potential to be a powerful uniting or divisive force within the family structure. At its core, society (and families as a microcosm), define themselves based upon what they are not. Accordingly, conflict theory is much the same function as it defines the group based on what it is not or what it stands in opposition to. In modern interpretation this would be viewed as the “haves vs the have nots”. Although a gross over simplification, this modern cliché helps to explain the underlying motives and desires that motivate those under the construct of conflict theory. If a family is able to identify itself by its material inequality and resistance against outside pressures in every form, it will doubtless create a unique environment in which cohesion is amplified at the expense of integration with society at large and the outside world as well. By drawing attention to the needs and power differentials that exist, conflict theory focuses on the needs of the individual rather than the needs of the unit. As such, the theory seeks to empower human potential by way of the change dynamic of an existing power structure. Alternatively, one of the single largest drawbacks towards adopting this theory in explanation of the family unit is that the complexities that are oftentimes extant among this most basic of societal groups oftentimes exist within the family as well. In short, to apply this theory to the family unit with the expectation that it will act as a solitary and monolithic entity assumes a behavioral pattern that is patently opposed to conflict theory itself. Conflict theory assumes that the unit will champion the selfish needs and rights of the unit while at the same time disenfranchising the needs and rights of its individualist components. Behaving in a self interested way yet expecting its members will not is exceedingly shortsighted. The very same conflict theory that gives the family unit a cohesion will certainly work to give it a lack of cohesion if the same principles of inequality and dissatisfaction are applied to its individual members rather than to the group as a whole. The fact of the matter is that the disadvantaged exist at every level of society and within every construct and unit. Not surprisingly, human nature and the selfish needs and wants of individualist tendencies will likely manifest themselves within the family structure in the very same way, and to much the same extant that conflict theory predicts that they it will in society at large. The final theory that will be analyzed with relation to the family unit in this brief analysis is interactionism theory. This theory proffers that social pressures (both positive and negative) are derived from human interaction. In short, how individuals act within a group is determined by their level of integration within that group. Before delving into how interactionism relates to the family structure, it is necessary to note that of the three theories discussed in this brief analysis, interactionism is the one that has the greatest strength. In effect, interactionism is taking sides in the age old argument between nature vs. nurture; with interactionism obviously coming in on the side of nurture. Rather than a formulistic approach that is likely to miss the major dynamics of the theory, interactionism stresses the cause and effect relationships that define the dynamics of what defines us within our unique social constructs (Sears, 2005). This is particularly salient with respect to the family unit as this theory is able to incorporate both an individualist response at the same time as incorporating the group dynamics and the causal factors behind each. The synergy between the two is unmistakable as what a person believes, what molds him/her and how he/she views his/her role within the group is all formed through daily experiences and group dynamics that present themselves in a host of different sociological and psychological levels. At this level of analysis, it only stands to reason that the interactionist approach helps to best explain the family dynamic as a vehicle for both personal and group level actions, decision making, and identity. On aggregate, one cannot disregard the role and distinct elements that individuals contribute to the group/family dynamic – nor can one devalue the role that the group has on the individuals own personal development. In short, interactionists desire to understand the individual with respect to how they react to and within the society at large. In opposition to what other theories such as conflict theory state, interactionalists are so convinced that interactions between individuals and groups forms the backbone of social fabric that they would go so far as to say things like class, gender, age, race are of minimal impact compared with the interactions that an individual takes part in on a daily basis. Some interactionists will deny the other theories entirely. Although a relatively new theory (coming to primary prominence in the later half of the 20th century), interactionalism is a bit of a catch-all theory of sociology in that it incorporates elements of individualism and the group dynamics that in other theories stand in such stark contrast to one another. As stated, this theory most likely appropriately mirrors the actions and motive creation of our current society. As such, if this theory were to be implemented society-wide, it is the belief of this author that very little in the way of group or individual dynamics would be altered as the same norms of behavior and reaction would likely remain unchanged (Burr, 1974). Perhaps the only differences would be manifested in the extent to which the theory would be applied; not necessarily the veracity of the theory itself. In as much, this leads to the most prominent drawback that this theory itself portends. The most telling drawback or weakness of the interactional theory is the fact that no two members of a family or group unit are likely to interpret or view a set of circumstances in the same way. Without going into a great deal of discussion on this topic, one can easily see evidence of this with respect to sibling rivalry, jealousy, and a host of other inter-family related issues that one side views a given set of circumstances in a wholly different way than the other. In much the same way that conflict theory would tend to both unite and divide a given family unit or group entity, interactionism behaves in much the same way. The theory itself, when applied to a group model, tends to infinitely regress until it reaches the most basic premise of human interaction – the individual. At this point, the theory continues to function; however, it loses its applicability at a systemic and group level of analysis. As perception of the situation is raised above other forms of interpretation, conflicts will doubtless arise over the course of its application. The age old dictum, “Perception is reality” although a tired cliché helps to show the level to which we are dependent, both on an individual level, and as part of a larger group upon the need to subjectify and classify our experiences in order to construct a broader framework with which to house our world view. No two family members within any given unit are likely to have the same interpretations of exactly how a situation has occurred or how a given occurrence should be measured; however, the shared narrative that this is based upon only helps to further cement the relationship of the individuals within the group rather than to separate them. Lastly, each of the above theories helps to explain the motives, desires, needs, and goals of the individual and the group as it relates to society as a broader whole. Analyzing and understanding familial relations on a basic lends this analysis to conclude that although particular elements of each of the theories may be latent within the norms of the family unit, it is the interactionist theory which most adequately explains the needs, reactions, and world-view of those within a family unit. With little regard to the particular type of sociological research method that one subscribes to, it is without question that our experiences tend to mold us and have a direct impact on how we view the world. Bibliography Burr, Wesley. Theory construction and the sociology of the family. New York: Wiley, 1973. McLennan, G. (2011). Story of sociology : a first companion to social theory. London New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Sears, A. (2005). A good book, in theory : a guide to theoretical thinking. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press. Read More