The Field of Sociology Theory and its Application - Essay Example

Introduction: Within the field of sociology, theory and its application/understanding helps the analyst to come to the realization that a litany of different approaches and points of view exist with respect to such issues as crime, marriage, homelessness and a many others. The underlying reason for the broad differences in approach and the focus that these approaches take help to set theoretical interpretations apart from one another and propose alternative means of engagement/understanding for many aspects of social interaction or cohesion. As a function of such an understanding, the following analysis will be broken into two distinct sections. The first section will be concentric upon comparing and contrasting three of the theories that have thus far been discussed and represented during the course of this semester; alongside providing take three of the theories that have thus far been analyzed and discussed during the course of this semester. Within this section will also be included a discussion of how each theory seeks to base its understanding of society, the component of social change, fundamental elements quested by sociologists within each perspective, alongside a discussion of the classic theorists that first proposed them and the manner through which time and place impacted upon the formation of these theories. Similarly, the second section will seek to compare and contrast how each of these three theories would seek to explain/understand crime that is represented within society. Through such a level of discussion, it is the hope of this author that the reader can come to a more informed understanding of each of these theories and the causal factors that promoted it into a level of importance within the past as well as the current eras. Part I: Firstly, with respect to functionalism, it can and should be noted that the very name itself helps to denote the image of society that it promotes. Ultimately, the functionalist perspective is one that places a profound level of emphasis on the interdependence of different components of society; linking them in a co-dependent relationship that furthers the needs of one group as it furthers the needs of another (Newhard 71). Such an organization of society helps, within this theoretical view, in preserving the order of society and in promoting stability. However, the functionalist approach should not be understood as optimistic in nature. Instead, the image of the functionalist theory denotes that in situations in which integration and cooperation between interdependent components of society does not take place, society is then forced to adapt as a means of seeking out a new level of functional integration with the component or components that have deviated from the norm. Within such an image of social change, the theorist that engages society based upon a functionalist perspective will invariably view social change as determined only on the basis of a prisoner’s dilemma type of situation; one in which cooperation and/or non-cooperation help to define the gains or benefits that will be achieved by all parties involved. Further, key questions that are asked by those sociologists that promote the functionalist perspective are necessarily contingent upon actions and/or approaches that benefit one group or individual over another; seeking to provide inference based upon how the needs of structure change and reform within a fluid dynamic. Originally promoted by the renowned positivist Auguste Comte, the functionalist theory was no doubt spawned in part by the industrial revolution and the means by which a more mechanical understanding of the way that society integrated with its component parts was effected. By means of comparison and contrast, social conflict theory bases its understanding of social interactions and dynamics upon the differentials between the “haves” and the “have nots”. This Marxist interpretation is one that places class and overall economic power as he prime determiner of whether or not an individual will be involved within the system or will come in conflict with it in one way or another. Therefore, under conflict theory, the prime understanding of society is based on how interaction is defined through economic wealth; or the lack thereof. Furthermore, within this theory, social change is precipitated by situations in which the “have nots” are able to leverage change by creating a higher level of fairness/equity. Accordingly, key elements and questions that are asked by sociologists within this paradigm relate to the overall disparity that might exist between one individual or one group as compared to another. Further, the level of frustration that is exhibited is oftentimes a catalyst for change; within such a way, sociologists that engage with this Marxist interpretation of social behavior tend to spend a great deal of time measuring and categorizing the levels of conflict that might be exhibited between groups as a means of either attempting to ameliorate it or proposing an alternative model that would more equitably address the core issues that stand behind the Marxist principles of economic frustration and inequality. Naturally, as might be expected, the theorist who was most responsible for putting this theory forward was none other than Karl Marx himself; the father of socialism and communism. Within the time and place that conflict theory came to be evidenced, mid 19th century England/Germany, the working class was under increasing pressures and miserable conditions foisted upon them by the greedy owners of capital that continually sought higher productivity and profits. As such, Marx saw the root evil of society as capitalism and attempted to promote an alternative means of economic engagement as a function of seeking to address the hardships that he witnessed on a near daily basis. Lastly, symbolic interactionism will be discussed. Within this particular theoretical interpretation of society, the analyst is encouraged to view society, and the individual, as two distinct but co-dependent parts of the same entity. Within this somewhat confusing structure, the analyst must note that a distinct level of individual creativity and drive exists within each and every individual; regardless of their place in society. Yet, by the same token, the analyst is encouraged to engage with an understanding of the fact that individuals react towards things that have an inherent meaning for them. Within the same understanding, the lack of response that is evidenced by concepts or ideals that have little importance is also noted. The fundamental questions that are posed and the key issues of importance of theoreticians and sociologists that engage with this model are predicated on what defines “importance” within individuals and within groups. The theory itself was first put forward by George Hurbert Mead. As such, the focus on the individual and the role that the individual had over a collective society, such as was being promoted in and around the time that the symbolic interactionism model came to be drafted likely had a very profound impact with respect to this theory. Part II: Of all the constructs that can be measured and inferred upon, the issue of crime is perhaps the most relevant to discussing the differentials between all of the theories that have thus far been put forward. As such, the proceeding section will analyze the way in which conflict theory, functionalism, and social interactionism explain motivations for and determinants to crime. Functionalism: The functionalist theory would promote the understanding that crime is the result of the breakdown in societal function between groups; thereby causing hardships until a new paradigm is achieved (Árnadóttir 353). Naturally, the ongoing and perennial nature of crime lends one to question the ultimate effectiveness of this approach in seeking to describe why crime continues to be a relevant problem within society (Taye 139). Yet, regardless of this factor, the break down in efficient interaction between groups and between individuals is undeniably a primary causation for why crime continues to be represented to such a high level throughout the globe and within so many distinct groups. Conflict Theory: As might be expected, conflict theory would point to economic disparity between the “haves” and the “have nots” as a means of describing why crime is so prevalent within the society of the current era (Brack et al. 7). Although this theory and approach has widely been adopted and accepted by sociologists, the key shortcoming in accepting it fully is with respect to the fact that the disparity that exists between rich and poor, at least within developed societies, has been dropping significantly over the past hundred years. Yet, crime rates have not effectively tracked alongside this decrease. Whereas it is true that the society of the current time experiences a relatively lower crime rate as compared to society 20 years past, this measurement only tells part of the overall story. Social Interactionism: Lastly, social interactionism would put forward the understanding that the key explanation for crime is predicated upon the value that individuals place upon their own needs and desires as opposed to the greater needs and desires of broader society. As has been defined in the analysis above, the differential between personal versus group identity and gains helps to define the theoretical interpretation for social interactionism (McGinty 158). Furthermore, within the mind of the criminal, personal value and need takes primary precedent over the “good” for the broader whole; encouraging such individuals to act in self interest as a means of providing motivation and meaning to their own distinct world view. Within the mind of this particular analyst, even though there are key shortcomings to defining crime within either the functionalist or Marxist conflict theory approach, there is not a clear drawback or theoretical shortcoming for defining crime in terms of social internationism. Conclusion: From the information that has been discussed, it is the hope of this author that the reader has been able to gain a more insightful understanding for the way in which each of these theories promotes an applicable understanding of society. Moreover, even though the social issue of crime was measured in terms of which of the three discussed theories is most relevant, it should not be misunderstood that either functionalism and/or conflict theory do not have a place in the realm of sociology and research. Instead, as with any tool of inquiry and analysis, it is ultimately up to the researcher and the stakeholder to determine which of these three theories is the most appropriate as a means of answering whatever research question might be at hand. Further, engaging an issue based upon all three theories, even if one or two of them is not particularly effective, allows for the analyst to come to a more informed level of appreciation for the metrics that each of these theories focuses upon and how the importance of any social issue can be defined/understood. Works Cited Árnadóttir, Steinvör. "Functionalism And Thinking Animals." Philosophical Studies 147.3 (2010): 347-354. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 May 2014. Brack, Greg, et al. "Ecosystemic Complexity Theory Of Conflict: Understanding The Fog Of Conflict." Journal Of Humanistic Counseling 50.1 (2011): 3-15. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 May 2014. McGinty, Patrick J. W. "Divided And Drifting: Interactionism And The Neglect Of Social Organizational Analyses In Organization Studies." Symbolic Interaction 37.2 (2014): 155-186. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 May 2014. Newhard, Jay. "Four Objections To Functionalism." Journal Of Philosophical Research 38.(2013): 69-87. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 May 2014. Taye, Oyelakin Richard. "A Discourse On Putnams Analogical Hypothesis Of Mental State And Machine State." IFE Psychologia21.1 (2013): 139-163. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 May 2014. Read More