Description of Sociological Theories - Essay Example

Sociology Sociology Social occurrences are usually analysed by sociologists at various levels and from dissimilar perspectives. From concrete explanations to sweeping overviews of social behaviour within a particular society, sociologists undertake to study everything from small social patterns to specific events. Many sociologists have offered a broader conceptualization of the essentials of societies and their workings. This paper presents their views from the foundation of present theoretical perspectives or paradigms that gives most sociologists with an orienting framework. It is noteworthy that presently, most sociologists employ three major theoretical perspectives namely: conflict perspective, functionalist perspective and symbolic interactionist perspective (Bilton 2002, 122). These three perspectives gives sociologists theoretical paradigms for providing explanations of the manner in which the society influence people and vice versa. Each of these perspectives outstandingly conceptualizes society, human behaviour and social forces. In a nutshell, this paper will analyse the similarities and difference between at least two sociological perspectives and briefly evaluate their usefulness in explaining contemporary society. Description of Sociological Theories When describing different sociological theories, it is important to understand ways in which the theories are integrated into the societal setting. Some of the sociological theories that play an integral role in helping people understand how sociologists view the world and the behaviour of individuals are: functionalist theory of class stratification and the functionalist theory of education. To begin with, the functionalist theory of class stratification highlights a number of issues. Before delving into these issues, it is essential to understand what is meant by social stratification. Social stratification refers to the manner in which the society is stratified or socially grouped in a hierarchical manner. This hierarchy creates inequality amongst the members of the society since it makes others unequal by putting others on the top and others on the bottom of the system (Haralambos & Holborn 2008, 92). Sociologists refer to stratification as a way of defining the concepts behind a number of social processes that assist in making societies and their cultures distinctive. Understanding class stratification helps in understanding how particular social institutions are formed through the three major features: a) Structured inequality b) Hierarchical c) Across generations of a given society. Functionalist theory of education is understood by sociologist in various ways. They contend that it is essential for societies to live in a healthy society; people must learn and embrace the norms and values within a particular society. Sociologists consider society as an organism and with this in mind; education is considered as an organ that forms the part of the body of a society. They believe that if schools work, societies are likely to work too since they are considered as mini-societies. With regard to education, schools are considered as having integral role of acting as the agents of socialization when transmitting values, roles, and norms. Thus, to understand education system, one must consider how it helps in contributing to the healthy maintenance of the entire society. Similarities and Differences of Functionalist Theory of Class Stratification As per Functionalists like Talcott Parsons (1902-1979), general public has particular fundamental needs or utilitarian requirements. For example, keeping up regular patterns of conduct and giving achievable objectives to people, and this has to be put into consideration to enhance society survival. Along these lines, functionalists look to class stratification to perceive how far it meets these fundamental needs. The main difference is that Functionalists consider parts of society structure as incorporated entire and therefore inspect the courses in which the class stratification framework is coordinated within different parts of society. This thought ought to help people remember the “natural relationship”. Functionalists recommend that a certain level of request and dependability is fundamental for the operation of society. They consequently consider how class stratification serves to keep up request and soundness in the public eye. In this way, they are mostly concerned with the commitment of class stratification to the support and prosperity of society (Haralambos & Holborn 2008, 72). Parsons recommended that request, dependability and collaboration in the public eye were focused around quality agreement; that is, a general understanding by parts of society concerning what is great and beneficial. It takes after from the presence of values that people will be assessed and, consequently, put in some manifestation of positioned request. As such, the individuals who perform effectively as far as a general publics qualities will be positioned profoundly and they will be liable to get a mixture of prizes. At the very least, they will be managed high notoriety since they embody and represent normal qualities. How is this theory applicable in the present world? One may contend that since various or diverse societies embrace dissimilar value system, the ways of attaining high position in the society vary depending on the societal setting. For instance Parson further argues that the American society believe in individual achievement, productive activity, and efficiency within the economy, which forms the basis of the “American Dream. Along these lines, fruitful representatives who have accomplished their position through their own drive, capacity and aspiration will get high rewards (Haralambos & Holborn 2008, 88). Based on the argument that there is a general conviction that stratification is simply, right and fitting; it is fundamentally a representation of imparted qualities. In this way, the class somebody is naturally introduced to ought not to influence their opportunities later in life, in the event that they make full utilization of the opportunities in life that can review disparities, such as getting a decent training or education. Additionally, functionalists propose that inequality between various societal groupings remains essential for a particular society for two significant reasons: Disparity is made by the varying rewards that individuals get for the diverse assignments that they complete. Along these lines, the individuals who complete the most vital undertakings – one of which in the society is considered as essential in creation of riches – ought to be remunerated higher to the individuals who do incompetent or less critical errands or occupations. The second primary explanation behind the support of this imbalance is that it gives those in the lower classes something to go for. In a case where we want, individuals to study hard and better themselves, there have to be an economic reward for such a particular task. Marxist Theory of Class Stratification How different is Marxist looking at the inequalities created within a particular society? Unlike Talcott Parsons, Karl Marx (1818-1883) wrote concerning various aspects of the society. Mark focused of three major aspects: philosophy; economics; which he shared with Talcott and; politics. Some of his most critical thoughts were about private inventiveness and the class context. When he illuminated class he utilized some specialized terms, which you have to know when one needs to comprehend his essential hypothesis. Unlike Parsons, Marx’s beginning stage was that individuals must strive to guarantee their own and the survival of species survival. He contends that for species to survive, they needed to take the things that were given by nature and utilizespecific approaches to accommodate their needs. Thus, some individuals will chase and accumulate, other individuals will raise cows or develop yields, and others will fabricate merchandise in plants. In this way, distinctive social orders arrange their lives and economies in diverse ways. For example in the Western world, every time or age in human culture has been portrayed by the specific routes in which parts of society composed themselves. This is known as the mode of production (Levine 2006, 54). Because of specific parts of the way society is composed, especially inconsistencies underway, the mode of generation in one time is changed into an alternate. Marx views class stratification in a different way and he identified four major production models that have been essential process of these transformations and they include: Antiquity; Primitive communism, Capitalism and Feudalism. Primitive communism is considered to be known for the times of the “cavemen” and later on hunter-gatherer societies, which was pigeonholed by sharing. Feudalism was known in the middle Ages and Antiquity, which were the early-civilized society characterized by slave-master relationship and Capitalism, which is understood for the present time and based on employee/capitalist association (Levine 2006, 61). Albeit some of Marxs composition was concerned with how these changes occurred, he likewise focused on clarifying private enterprise and the part it plays in class divisions in the public eye. One of the components on which the mode of creation is based is known as the method for production. He saw two noteworthy divisions in the public arena amid his lifetime and his hypothesis is seen as a two-class model. The two major classes are: Those entitled with the ownership of production means that he referred to as the bourgeoisie or the ruling class. These are the individuals who had power within particular settings of a society and could dictate how matters were to be handled and which raw materials were to be utilized. They also had the capability of exploiting and oppressing those who never owned anything (Levine 2006, 66). Those who owned nothing and he referred to them as the proletariat or the (working class). People within this class never owned anything and they survived by selling their labour; thus, making to be under their employer’s consideration. Presently, this is applicable in the present world in the sense that the “ownership of production” has direct impact on the general production. This term alludes to the types of control over the production process and to the sorts of co-operation between specialists. As earlier demonstrated, the bourgeoisie, in light of the fact that they possess the means of production, they can abuse and mistreat the working class. This is because working class have no decision however to work under stipulated conditions set by the managers or the elite. For Marx, this industrialist or capitalist mode of production is upheld by entrepreneur thoughts. He clarified this by alluding to the industrialist financial base (or foundation) of society and the superstructure of society. The monetary base is portrayed by industrialist speculation and the drive for benefits. The superstructure is comprised of social and social organizations, for example, the arrangement of laws, the instruction framework and the broad communications, which are shaped by the help of the prerequisites of the financial base. Therefore, the financial base is the establishment of the entrepreneur framework and the superstructure shapes the standards, values and parts that help the continuation of the industrialist framework. The standards, qualities and parts come to persuade the working class that private enterprise is typical and characteristic (Cole 2009, 121). The low class experience the ill effects of false awareness on the grounds that they start to believe that the industrialist framework is reasonable and that they also can get to be effective and rich. Marxist Theory of Education Besides the above discussion regarding the theories of class stratification, Marxists also looked into the multifaceted educational settings. For Marxists, the educational framework serves the needs of free enterprise by transmitting entrepreneur social standards and qualities. Restricted it does this is through what is alluded to as the concealed educational program (Andersen & Taylor 2008, 241). The shrouded educational program reflects entrepreneur societys standards and values and gets ready people for their spot in the public arena and their future work part. Presently, the educational framework gives a hallucination of fairness of chance that results in disparities. This therefore permits disparity in different ranges of society; for example, work, to be considered typical (Price 1986, 271). Marxists believe that education in a sociological perspective serves two major functions in the society of capitalists: a) It serves as a means of legitimizing these inequalities under the guise of meritocracy (Price 1986, 25). b) It introduces disparities and social associations of production of the society of capitalists. Conclusion By analysing the similarities and difference between at least two sociological perspectives and briefly evaluate their usefulness in explaining contemporary society, it is evident that they play various roles in different theoretical perspective. These divergent views by Talcott and Marx compel many people to seek answers to many questions concerning the society and its people and how they view sociological problems. It is noteworthy that presently, these sociological perspectives presented in this paper remain fundamental in shaping the world today. From the Functionalist theory of class stratification and Marxist theory class stratification to the Marxist theory of education, people learn a lot regarding how the society is shaped. Reference List Andersen, M. L., & Taylor, H. F., (2008), Sociology: understanding a diverse society. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Bilton, T., (2002), Introductory sociology. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Cole, M., (2009), Critical Race Theory and education a Marxist response. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M., (2008), Sociology: themes and perspectives. London, Collins. Levine, R. F., (2006), Social class and stratification: classic statements and theoretical debates. Lanham, Rowman& Littlefield Publishers. Price, R. F., (1986), Marx and education in late capitalism. Totowa, N.J., Barnes & Noble Books. Read More