Three Sociological Interpretations of the Role of the University - Essay Example

Three Sociological Interpretations of the Role of the University in Society The university can in fact be seen and interpreted in different sociological perspectives about its role in society apart from its usual role as repository of knowledge and skills. The university can be interpreted in the sociological perspectives of Emile Durkheim, Michel Focault and Karl Marx. Emile Durkheim advances the idea of a functionalist perspective while Michel Focault has his postmodernist feminist theory and finally, Marx’s conflict theory. Of these three sociological perspectives in interpreting the role of university in society, Emile Durkheim’s functionalist perspective may be the most popular among students. Emile Durkheim’s functionalist perspective posits that institutions, such as universities help shape collective beliefs and that it makes society to interact and become more cohesive. The university is not only a place of learning or an infrastructure that houses students but also a place where people can socialize and through it, helps society to be more cohesive. Meaning, the university is not just a place where we study, but also a place where we make friends. This process of making friends, helps our society more cohesive as we bond with our school mates who comes from different perspectives and background. In a way, the university serves as a social cement to make our society more cohesive. Today, we may find our university not only as bastion of learning but also a beacon of justice and equality where discrimination particularly gender is highly frowned upon. In the university, both genders are treated equally where women are empowered in the same manner as it would to men. This may be common but this actually came from the construct of Michel Focault postmodernist feminist theory. For Focault’s feminist theory the relationship of power, body and sexuality and gender are just cultural constructs rather than natural phenomena. Focault furthered that the idea that women are supposed to be weaker or inferior than men is actually a byproduct of norm created by a patriarchal society. In short, Focault asserted that in essence there is really no difference between a man and a woman. If ever there is, it is just a cultural construct, or one that is made up by people to subjugate women. Today, we can find Focault’s influence in the university as it embraced Focault’s feminist theory that it became a staunch defender of equal rights between man and a woman. This may be a given today but for a time, gender equality had to be fought for and Focault provided the sociological basis for the feminist argument. Finally, Marx sociological interpretation of conflict theory may be the least expected in interpreting the university’s role but his conflict theory is nevertheless as valid as Durkheim’s functionalist perspective or Weber’s symbolic interaction. Many may not like the idea but in general, the university’s approach in encouraging students to think critically is actually a Marxist approach. Yes, even in universities situated in democratic countries that do not like communist or conflict such as United States. The approach of creating a thesis, counter-thesis or rebuttal to arrive at a synthesis is actually a Marxist approach that belongs to conflict theory. Conflict theory as the name suggests, theorizes that there is an opposing idea to anything and this opposition or conflict, leads to another which may again be opposed leading to another. Teachers and professors may not label it as a Marxist conflict theory but it is actually the sociological approach of dialectical materialism which is patently Marxist that posits that in every thesis, there is always an antithesis and this two will eventually produce a synthesis. Every time we do a report, an argumentative paper, we are actually practicing Marx’s sociological perspective. And yes they are induced by the professors especially when they look for our thesis, its rebuttal and most importantly, what we think about it. Universities may have relabelled this learning process as critical thinking but it is actually Marx’s conflict theory or dialectical materialism. Strangely, the origin of conflict theory or dialectical materialism is not even academic in nature but rather an attempt to formulate a method for societal change – a revolution. It began with Karl Marx’s despised of the idea of private ownership and capitalism. He believed that in an economic structure where the means of production or industry are owned privately, it will only be managed by the rich and the upper class, calling it as a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” and will only serve their self-interest which is the thesis. And because of these, conflict or social tension will be inevitable (which is the antithesis) and will eventually lead to the downfall of the bourgeoisie. This process of “dialectical materialism”, where the thesis collides with the antithesis will bring out the synthesis or the rise of the masses. Marx argued that these structural contradictions in the private ownership of production by capitalism will cause its own demise, giving birth to Socialism which will ultimately leads to Communism. In plain language, conflict theory originated from the idea that capitalism with all its evils as Marx saw it such as exploitation, injustice and excessiveness serves as the thesis. The tension, conflict and discontent that these injustice, exploitation and discontent about the status quo of capitalism is the antithesis. The result of this conflict or tension will result in a new system called Socialism or the synthesis. This synthesis will topple the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” and will be replaced by the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or in plain language, the antithesis will eventually overcome the thesis to produce the synthesis. Studying Durkheim’s functionalist perspective, Focault’s Feminist theory and Marx’s conflict theory or dialectical materialism allows us to understand the dynamics of our society that we can even interpret institutions such as universities from other perspective. From the understanding of Durkheim, we now see that university is a place where we bond and not just to study. Understanding Focault on the other hand adds perspective to the social bond that is fostered in the university as espoused by Durkheim by removing the gender discrimination in its campus. Without Focault’s feminist theory, the university cannot become a genuine place to cement social relationships. And finally, understanding Marx will make us realize that critical thinking of which the university instill in us is actually a derivative of Marx’s conflict theory or dialectical materialism. Read More