Be able to identify some of the leading theorists and the concepts they contributed to sociology. Learn the different theoretical approaches modern sociologists bring to the field.
Although the origins of sociology were mainly European, over the last century, the subject has become firmly established worldwide, and some of the most important developments have taken place in the United States.
The work of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), a philosopher teaching at the University of Chicago, influenced the development of sociological thought, in particular through a perspective called symbolic interactionism. Mead placed particular importance on the study of language in analyzing the social world. According to him, language allows us to become self-conscious beings aware of our own individuality. The key element in this process is the symbol, something that stands for something else. For example, the word tree is a symbol by which we represent the object tree. Once we have mastered such a concept, Mead argued, we can think of a tree even if none is visible. Symbolic thought frees us from being limited in our experience to what we can actually see, hear, or feel.
Unlike animals, according to Mead, human beings live in a richly symbolic universe. This idea applies even to our very sense of self. Each of us is a self-conscious being because we learn to look at ourselves as if from the outside—as others see us. When a child begins to refer to themselves as “I,” the object that till then others have called “you,” the child is exhibiting the beginnings of self-consciousness.
All interactions among individuals, symbolic interactionists say, involve an exchange of symbols. When we interact with others, we constantly look for clues to discern what type of behavior is appropriate in the context and interpret what others are up to. Symbolic interactionism directs our attention to the detail of interpersonal interaction and how that detail is used to make sense of what others say and do. For instance, suppose two people are on a first date. Each spends a good part of the evening sizing the other up and assessing how the relationship is likely to develop, if at all. Neither wishes to be seen doing this too openly, although each recognizes that it is going on. Both individuals are careful about their own behavior, being eager to present themselves in a favorable light, but, knowing this, both are looking for aspects of the other’s behavior that reveal their true nature. A complex and subtle process of symbolic interpretation shapes their interaction.
Symbolic interactionism has been criticized for concentrating too much on things that are small in scope. Symbolic interactionists have struggled to deal with larger-scale structures and processes—the very things that a rival tradition of thought, functionalism, emphasizes. Functionalist thinking in sociology was originally pioneered by Comte, who saw it as closely bound up with his overall view of the field.
To study the function of a social activity is to analyze its contribution to the continuation of the society as a whole. The best way to understand this idea is by analogy to the human body, a comparison that Comte, Durkheim, and other functionalist authors made. To study an organ such as the heart, we need to show how it relates to other parts of the body. When we learn how the heart pumps blood, we understand its vital role in the continuation of the organism’s life. Similarly, analyzing the function of some aspect of society, such as religion, means examining its role in the continued existence and health of a society. Functionalism emphasizes the importance of moral consensus in maintaining order and stability in society. Moral consensus exists when most people share the same values. Functionalists regard order and balance as the normal state of society—this social equilibrium is grounded in a moral consensus among the members of society. According to Durkheim, for instance, religion reaffirms people’s adherence to core social values, thereby helping to maintain social cohesion.
Functionalism became prominent in sociology through the writings of Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) and Robert K. Merton (1910–2003), each of whom saw functionalist analysis as providing the key to the development of sociological theory and research. Merton’s version of functionalism has been particularly influential.
In his work, Merton distinguished between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are those known to, and intended by, the participants in a social activity. Latent functions are consequences of that activity of which participants are unaware. Merton used the example of a rain dance performed by the Hopi tribe of Arizona and New Mexico. The Hopi believe that the ceremony will bring the rain they need for their crops (manifest function). This is why they organize and participate in the dance. But using Durkheim’s theory of religion, Merton argued that the rain dance also promotes the cohesion of Hopi society (latent function). A major part of sociological explanation, according to Merton, consists in uncovering the latent functions of social activities and institutions.
Merton also distinguished between functions and dysfunctions. To look for the dysfunctional aspects of social behavior means to focus on features of social life that challenge the existing order. For example, it is incorrect to suppose that religion is always functional—that it contributes only to social cohesion. When two groups support different religions or different versions of the same religion, the result can be major social conflicts, causing widespread social disruption. Thus, wars have often been fought between religious communities—as in the struggles between Protestants and Catholics in European history.
For much of the twentieth century, functionalist thought was considered the leading theoretical tradition in sociology, particularly in the United States. In recent years, its popularity has declined as its limitations have become apparent. While this was not true of Merton, many functionalist thinkers—Talcott Parsons is an example—unduly stressed factors leading to social cohesion at the expense of those producing division and conflict. In addition, many critics claim that functional analysis attributes to societies certain qualities they do not have. Functionalists often wrote as though societies had “needs” and “purposes,” even though these concepts make sense only when applied to individual human beings.
Functionalism and symbolic interactionism are not the only modern theoretical traditions of importance in sociology. A third influential approach is conflict theory. In general, conflict theories underscore the role of coercion and power in producing social order. Social order is believed to be maintained by domination, with power in the hands of those who possess the greatest political, economic, and social resources; historically, those with power would include White men with ample economic and political resources. Two particular approaches typically classified under the broad heading of conflict theories are Marxism and feminist theories.
Marxists, of course, all trace their views back to the writings of Karl Marx, but today, some schools of Marxist thought take very different theoretical positions.
In all its variations, Marxism differs from non-Marxist traditions of sociology in that its adherents view sociology as a combination of sociological analysis and political reform. Marxism is supposed to generate a program of radical political change. Moreover, Marxists place more emphasis on conflict, class divisions, power, and ideology than do many non-Marxist sociologists, especially those influenced by functionalism. The concept of power is of great importance to Marxist sociologists and to sociology in general. Power refers to the ability of individuals or groups to make their own interests count, even when others resist. Power sometimes involves the direct use of force but is almost always accompanied by the development of ideologies (ideas), which are used to justify the actions of the powerful. Power, ideology, and conflict are always closely connected. Many conflicts are about power because of the rewards it can bring. Those who hold the most power may depend on the influence of ideology to retain their dominance, but they are usually also able to use force if necessary.
Feminist theory is one of the most prominent areas of contemporary sociology. This development is notable because gender issues are scarcely touched upon in the work of the major figures who established the discipline. The success of feminism’s entry into sociology required a fundamental shift in the discipline’s approach.
Many feminist theorists’ experiences in the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s influenced their work as sociologists. Like Marxism, feminism links sociological theory and political reform. Many feminist sociologists have been advocates for political and social action to eliminate the inequalities between women and men in both the public and the private spheres.
Feminist sociologists argue that women’s lives and experiences are central to the study of society. Historically, sociology, like most academic disciplines, has presumed a male point of view. Concerned with women’s subordination in society, feminist sociologists highlight gender relations and gender inequality as important determinants of social life in terms of both social interaction and social institutions such as the family, the workplace, and the educational system. Feminist theory emphasizes that gendered patterns and gendered inequalities are not natural but socially constructed. (We will cover this point in more detail in Chapter 10.)
Today, feminist sociology focuses on the intersection of gender, race, and class. A feminist approach to the study of inequality has influenced new fields of study, such as men’s studies, sexuality studies, and LGBTQ+ studies. Taken together, these theoretical perspectives underscore power imbalances and draw attention to the ways that social change must entail shifts in the balance of power—consistent with the overarching themes of conflict theories.
Most conflict theory focuses on social conflicts within societies, such as those involving social classes, gender relations, and ethnic conflicts that do not break out into open violence. Perhaps this is because wars have been seen as rare events, rather than as natural states of affairs, and therefore have not been central to the development of sociological theory. The war between Russia and Ukraine reminds us that this assumption is not correct. In the course of human history, the existence of wars has been quite normal while periods of relative peace, such as most of the past several decades in Europe, have actually been quite rare.
Max Weber thought that all behavior could be divided into four categories: (1) behavior oriented toward higher values, such as politics; (2) behavior oriented toward habit, such as walking to school on a familiar path; (3) behavior oriented toward affect (emotions), such as falling in love; and (4) behavior oriented toward self-interest, such as making money. Behavior in the last category is often called “instrumental,” or “rational,” action. In recent years, many sociologists have adopted an approach that focuses on this type of behavior. This approach has led numerous scholars to ask under what conditions human behavior can be said to constitute rational responses to opportunities and constraints.
The rational choice approach posits that if you could have only a single variable to explain society, self-interest would be the best one. A person who believes in this approach might even use it to explain things that seem irrational. One popular rational choice theory sees decisions to marry as maximizing self-interest in a marriage market; this understanding might explain why marriage has declined the most in poor African American communities with low rates of employment. The explanation—that it is not in the self-interest of women to marry men who cannot support them (Wilson, 1987)—goes against competing explanations suggesting that poor African Americans don’t marry because they don’t share mainstream values. The rational choice argument sees the decline as having little to do with values and much to do with self-interest under existing conditions. According to this theory, if employment rates for Black men were to change, so would the number of “eligible” men and the desire of women to marry them.
Rational choice theorists find few irrational mysteries in life. One of the few some note is love, which they define as the irrational act of substituting another person’s self-interest for one’s own (Becker, 1991). But such a definition makes it difficult to distinguish among basic altruism, friendship, and romantic love. Indeed, although a rational choice approach often can be useful, it cannot explain some aspects of life. Consider an angry driver who tries to teach a tailgater a lesson by tailgating the tailgater. Self-interest does not explain this action, because the “teacher” is unlikely personally to reap the benefits of a lesson well learned (Katz, 1999).
Advocates of postmodernism claim that the classic social thinkers’ idea that history has a shape—it “goes somewhere” and leads to progress—has collapsed. No longer do any “grand narratives,” or metanarratives—overall conceptions of history or society—make any sense (Lyotard, 1985). In fact, there is no such thing as history. The postmodern world is not destined, as Marx hoped, to be a socialist one. Instead, it is dominated by the new media, which “take us out” of our past. Postmodern society is highly pluralistic and diverse. As countless films, videos, TV programs, and websites circulate images around the world, the many ideas and values we encounter have little connection with our local or personal histories. Everything seems constantly in flux: “[F]lexibility, diversity, differentiation, and mobility, communication, decentralization and internationalization are in the ascendant. In the process our own identities, our sense of self, our own subjectivities are being transformed” (Hall, 1988).
One important theorist of postmodernity, Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007), believed that electronic media created a chaotic, empty world. Despite being influenced by Marxism in his early years, Baudrillard argued that the spread of electronic communication and the mass media reversed the Marxist theorem that economic forces shape society. Instead, he asserted, social life is influenced above all by signs and images. In a media-dominated age, Baudrillard said, meaning is created by the flow of images, as in TV programs. Much of our world is now a make-believe universe in which we respond to media images rather than to real persons or places. Is “reality” television a portrayal of social “reality,” or does it feature televised people who are perceived to be “real”? Do hunters in Louisiana really look and act like the Robertson family on Duck Dynasty, and do the tough guys in Amish Mafia resemble the peaceful Amish who live and work in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania? Baudrillard would say no and would describe such images as “the dissolution of life into TV” (Baudrillard, 1994, p. 30).
So far, we have been discussing theoretical approaches—broad orientations to the subject matter of sociology. Theoretical approaches are distinct from theories. Theories are more narrowly focused and represent attempts to explain particular social conditions or types of events. Theories are usually formed during the research process and in turn suggest other problems for subsequent research. An example would be Durkheim’s theory of suicide, referred to earlier in this chapter.
Sociologists do not share a unified position on whether theories should be specific, wide-ranging, or somewhere in between. Merton (1957), for example, argued that sociologists should concentrate on what he called theories of the middle range. Rather than attempting to create grand theoretical schemes (in the manner of Marx, for instance), sociologists should develop more modest theories. Middle-range theories are specific enough to be tested by empirical research, yet sufficiently general to cover a range of phenomena.
Consider the theory of relative deprivation, which holds that how people evaluate their circumstances depends on the persons to whom they compare themselves. Thus, feelings of deprivation do not conform directly to the level of material poverty one experiences. A family living in a small home in a poor area, where everyone is living in similar circumstances, is likely to feel less deprived than a family living in a similar house in a neighborhood where other homes are much larger and other people more affluent.
Assessing theories in sociology, especially theoretical approaches, is a challenging and formidable task. The fact that there is no single theoretical approach that dominates the whole of sociology might be viewed as a limitation. But this is not the case: The jostling of rival theoretical approaches and theories actually highlights the vitality of the sociological enterprise. In studying human beings (ourselves), theoretical variety rescues us from dogma. Human behavior is complex, and no single theoretical perspective could adequately cover all its aspects. Diversity in theoretical thinking provides a rich source of ideas for research and stimulates the imaginative capacities so essential to progress in sociological work.
An important distinction among the theoretical perspectives we’ve discussed in this chapter involves the level of analysis at which each is directed. The study of everyday behavior in situations of small-scale face-to-face interaction is called microsociology. Macrosociology, by contrast, is the analysis of large-scale social systems, such as the political system or the economy. It also includes analysis of long-term processes of change, such as the development of industrialization. Although micro analysis and macro analysis may seem distinct from each other, in fact, the two are closely connected (Giddens, 1984; Knorr-Cetina & Cicourel, 1981).
Macro analysis is essential for understanding the institutional background of daily life. The ways in which people live their everyday lives are shaped by the broader institutional framework. Consider a comparison of the daily cycle of activities in a medieval culture and in an industrialized urban environment. In modern societies, we are constantly in contact with strangers—however indirect and impersonal. No matter how many indirect or electronic relationships we enter into, even the most complex societies require the presence of other people. While we may opt to just text or email an acquaintance, we can also choose to fly thousands of miles to spend the weekend with a friend.
Micro studies, in turn, are necessary for illuminating broad institutional patterns. Face-to-face interaction is the basis of all forms of social organization, no matter how large scale. In studying a business corporation, we could analyze the face-to-face interactions of directors in the boardroom, staff working in their offices, or workers on the factory floor. We would not gain a clear picture of the whole corporation in this way, because some of its business involves email, phone calls, and printed materials. Yet we could certainly contribute significantly to understanding how the organization works.
Later chapters will give further examples of how interaction in micro contexts affects larger social processes and how macro systems in turn influence the more confined settings of social life.
CONCEPT CHECKS