An analysis of the three sociological perspectives

This paper discusses three attacks that can be taken when analyzing Sociology. There are many topics to be studied and discussed in the field of Sociology, and the attack chosen to analyze a peculiar topic is called a position. There are three different positions, and they are functionalist, struggle, and interactionist positions. This paper compares and contrasts these different positions with one another.

Through Analysis, A Compare and Contrast

Of the Three Sociological Positions:

Functionalist, Conflict, and Interactionist

When analyzing in the field of Sociology everyone is traveling to near subjects in a different mode. No two people are traveling to hold the exact same position on a peculiar topic. There are nevertheless, three major classs in which people might take to near subjects. The attacks are know as sociological positions and are the functionalist, struggle, and interactionist positions. These positions name different ways in which different people choose to analyse a topic, and how they look at a society as a whole. The undermentioned paragraphs comparison and contrast the three, and place major features of each.

“ The functionalist position is a sociological attack which emphasizes the manner that parts of a society are construction to keep its stableness, ” ( Schaefer & A ; Lamm, 1998 ) . This perspective looks at a society in a positive mode and sees it as stable, with all the parts working together. Under the functionalist position every societal facet of a society contributes to the society ‘s endurance, and if non, the facet is non passed to the following coevals.

There are two people who where chiefly involved in the development of the functionalist position, they are Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons. Durkheim contributed to the functionalist position when she was analyzing faith, and how it was responsible for people experiencing solidarity and integrity in groups. Parsons was a sociologist from Harvard University who was greatly influenced by Durkheim. In return, he influenced Sociology by ruling the field, with his functionalist positions, for four decennaries ( Schaefer & A ; Lamm, 1998 ) .

When nearing a topic with the functionalist position, manifest and latent maps every bit good as disfunctions are looked at and studied. A manifest map of an establishment is one that is stated and expected. A latent map is one that is unexpected or can demo a concealed intent of an establishment, and a disfunction is a constituent of a society that can do instability ( Rothman, 1998 ) . These maps and disfunctions are use in analysing a society.

Functionalist position is an attack to analyzing a society on the macrosociological degree. This means that a society is studied on a big graduated table as a whole. The position of the person in a functionalist position is that people are socially molded, non forced, to execute social maps. Order in a society, as viewed by a functionalist, is maintained when members of a society cooperated with one another. Functionalists view societal alteration as being predictable and positive. The chief thought of functionalist position is that of stableness ( Schaefer & A ; Lamm, 1998 ) .

“ The struggle position is a sociological attack which assumes that societal behaviour is best understood in footings of struggle or tenseness between different groups, ” ( Schaefer & A ; Lamm, 1998 ) . In contrast to the functionalist position of stableness, struggle sociologist see a society as being in changeless battle. The thought of struggle is non needfully violent ; it could merely mention to dissensions that are worked out through a go-between ( Platt, 1999 ) .

The two chief subscribers to the formation of the struggle position are Karl Marx and W. E. B. Du Bois. Karl Marx explained that struggles between categories of society are inevitable, since workers will ever be exploited as a consequence of capitalist economy. It is through the enlargement of Marx ‘s work that sociologist now use struggle theory to all facets of society. Even though there are analogues between Marxist theories and conflict position they are non the same. An of import facet of struggle position is that it encourages sociologists to look at a society through the eyes of those in the population who does non act upon determination devising. Du Bois contributed to the struggle position by analyzing society in mention to inkinesss and their battles within society ( Schaefer & A ; Lamm, 1998 ) .

The struggle position sees society as being full of tenseness and battle between groups. It besides, like functionalist, analyzes society on the macrosociological degree. As for the person, they are perceived as being shaped by power and authorization. Social order is viewed as being maintained non through cooperation, but through force. And societal alteration is non predictable, but is invariably taking topographic point. The struggle position ‘s chief thought is that there are viing involvements between groups and societal inequality exists, hence there is ever struggle of some sort.

“ The interactionist position is a sociological attack which generalizes about cardinal or mundane signifiers of societal interaction, ” ( Schaefer & A ; Lamm, 1998 ) . Interactionist perspective focal points on the manner that little groups act, in order to understand society as a whole. Interactionists survey people in their mundane behaviour and how they react to their milieus. Such milieus may include material things, actions, other people, and symbols.

George Herbert Mead is most frequently credited with establishing the interactionist position, but Charles Horton Cooley besides shared Mead ‘s positions. Mead was a professor at the University of Chicago, and he focused on the analysis of one-to-one state of affairss and other little groups. He paid peculiar attending to organic structure linguistic communication such as a scowl or nod, and he besides asked the inquiries of how other group members effected these gestures. His pupils passed down his positions after his decease, as a consequence of hearing his talks ( Schaefer & A ; Lamm, 1998 ) .

The interactionist position of society is that we influence each other ‘s mundane societal interactions. In contrast to functionalist and conflict positions, the interactionist perspective surveies society on a microsociological degree. In other words they study on a little graduated table in order to understand the big graduated table. Interactionists believe that an single creates their ain societal universe through his or her interactions, and it is thought that societal order is maintained when people portion their apprehension of mundane behaviour. Interactionists say that societal alteration occurs when the places and communicating with one another alteration. The chief thought of an interactionist sociologist is to analyze gestural communicating and little groups paying peculiar attendings to objects and symbols ( Schaefer & A ; Lamm, 1998 ) .

As one can state from reading these three attacks are really different in the manner in which they study sociological issues. They all strive to give significance to why people do what they do, and neither is better than the other, they merely go about making the same end in a different manner.



I'm Larry

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out