UNDERSTANDING

CULTURE, SOCIETY
AND POLITICS
QUARTER 1
WEEK 4
 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF
CULTURE, SOCIETY AND POLITICS
• Humans seek explanations about why
things happen. Each person has ideas
about the nature of
• Existence, motion, and relationships.
Our ideas come from everywhere-
from experiences,
• Conversations, materials we read,
media we access, our teachers, family
friends and foes—all these are
• Sources of ideas.
 A. WHAT IS A THEORY
•Theory explains how some aspect of
human behavior or performance is
organized. It thus enables us to make
predictions about that behavior.
 WHAT IS A THEORY?
• Theory explains how some aspect of
human behavior or performance is
organized. It thus enables us to
• Make predictions about that behavior.
 COMPONENTS OF THEORY
• The components of theory are concepts (ideally well defined) and
principles.
• A concept is a symbolic representation of an actual thing - tree, chair, table,
computer, distance, etc.
• Construct is the word for concepts with no physical referent - democracy,
learning, freedom, etc.
language enables conceptualization.
• A principle expresses the relationship between two or more concepts or
constructs. In the process of theory development, one derives principles
based on one’s examining/questioning how things/concepts are related.
 CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES SERVE TWO
IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS:

• 1) they help us to understand or explain what is going on around us.

• 2) they help us predict future events (can be causal or correlational)
• Theories are crucial to science because they provide a logical
framework for making sense out of
• Scientific observations. In sociology, a theory is a set of general
assumptions about the nature of society.
 B. THEORETICAL PARADIGMS
• Macro vs. Micro view
• Sociologists may study human society by focusing on the
large social phenomena or “the big picture”, such a social
institutions and inequality to see how it operates. This is the
macro view. They can also zero in on the immediate social
situation where people interact with one another or looking
at the situational patterns of social interaction.
THREE MAJOR PERSPECTIVES
IN SOCIOLOGY
• Sociologists analyze social phenomena at different levels
and from different perspectives. From concrete
interpretations to sweeping generalizations of society and
social behavior, sociologists study everything from specific
events (the micro level of analysis of small social patterns)
to the “big picture” (the macro level of analysis of large
social patterns).
• The pioneering European sociologists, however, also
offered a broad conceptualization of the
fundamentals of society and its workings. Their views
form the basis for today's theoretical perspectives, or
paradigms, which provide sociologists with an
orienting framework—a philosophical position—for
asking certain kinds of questions about society and
its people.
• Sociologists today employ three primary theoretical
perspectives: the symbolic interactionist perspective,
the functionalist perspective, and the conflict
perspective. These perspectives offer sociologists
theoretical paradigms for explaining how society
influences people, and vice versa. Each perspective
uniquely conceptualizes society, social forces, and
human behavior.
 TABLE 1 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
Sociological Level of Focus
Perspective Analysis
1. Symbolic Micro Use of symbols; Face to face interactions
Interactionism
2. Functionalism Macro Relationship between the parts of
society; How aspects of society are
functional (adaptive)
3. Conflict Macro Competition for scarce resources; How
Theory the elite control the poor and weak.
 THE SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST
PERSPECTIVE
• The symbolic interactionist perspective, also known as
symbolic interactionism, directs sociologists to consider
the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols
mean, and how people interact with each other. Although
symbolic interactionism traces its origins to max weber's
assertion that individuals act according to their
interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American
philosopher George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced this
perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.
• According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach
meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective
interpretation of these symbols. Verbal conversations, in which
spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this
subjective interpretation especially evident. The words have a
certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during effective
communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the
“receiver.” In other terms, words are not static “things”; they require
intention and interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of
symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the world
around them.
• Of course, anything can serve as a symbol as long as
it refers to something beyond itself. Written music
serves as an example. The black dots and lines
become more than mere marks on the page; they
refer to notes organized in such a way as to make
musical sense. Thus, symbolic interactionists give
serious thought to how people act, and then seek to
determine what meanings individuals assign to their
own actions and symbols, as well as to those of
others.
• Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the American
institution of marriage. Symbols may include wedding
bands, vows of life-long commitment, a white bridal dress, a
wedding cake, a church ceremony, and flowers and music.
American society attaches general meanings to these
symbols, but individuals also maintain their own
perceptions of what these and other symbols mean. For
example, one of the spouses may see their circular wedding
rings as symbolizing “never ending love,” while the other
may see them as a mere financial expense. Much faulty
communication can result from differences in the
perception of the same events and symbols.
• Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects
the macro level of social interpretation—the “big
picture.” In other words, symbolic interactionists may
miss the larger issues of society by focusing too
closely on the “trees” (for example, the size of the
diamond in the wedding ring) rather than the
“forest” (For example, the quality of the marriage).
The perspective also receives criticism for slighting
the influence of social forces and institutions on
individual interactions.
 THE FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
• According to the functionalist perspective, also called
functionalism, each aspect of society is interdependent and
contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The
government, or state, provides education for the children of
the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state
depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is
dependent upon the school to help children grow up to
have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own
families. In the process, the children become law abiding,
taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state.
• If all goes well, the parts of society
produce order, stability, and
productivity. If all does not go well,
the parts of society then must adapt
to recapture a new order, stability,
and productivity. For example,
during a financial recession with its
high rates of unemployment and
inflation, social programs are
trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer
programs. Families tighten their
budgets. And a new social order,
stability, and productivity occur.
• Functionalists believe that society
is held together by social
consensus, or cohesion, in which
members of the society agree
upon, and work together to
achieve, what is best for society as
a whole. Emile Durkheim
suggested that social consensus
takes one of two forms:
• Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion
that arises when people in a society maintain similar
values and beliefs and engage in similar types of
work. Mechanical solidarity most commonly occurs in
traditional, simple societies such as those in which
everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society
exemplifies mechanical solidarity.
• In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social
cohesion that arises when the people in a society are
interdependent, but hold to varying values and
beliefs and engage in varying types of work. Organic
solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized,
complex societies such those in large American cities
like New York in the 2000s.
• The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among
American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s. While European
functionalists originally focused on explaining the inner workings of social
order, American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of
human behavior. Among these American functionalist sociologists is
Robert Merton (b. 1910), who divides human functions into two types:
manifest functions are intentional and obvious, while latent functions
are unintentional and not obvious. The manifest function of attending a
church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship as part of religious
community, but its latent function may be to help members learn to
discern personal from Institutional values.
• With common sense,
manifest functions become
easily apparent. Yet this is not
necessarily the case for latent
functions, which often
demand a sociological
approach to be revealed. A
sociological approach in
functionalism is the
consideration of the
relationship between the
functions of smaller parts and
the functions of the whole.
• Functionalism focuses on social order. Emile Durkheim differentiates two
forms of social order. The first is mechanical solidarity. It is a type of social
cohesion that develops when people do similar work. Most, often it exists in
small scale traditional societies. The second is organic solidarity. It is a type of
social cohesion that is formed in a society whose members work in specialized
jobs.
• Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an
event such as divorce.
• Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency
on the part of society’s members. Functionalism does not encourage people to
take an active role in changing their social environment, even when such change
may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees active social change as
undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate naturally for
any problems that may arise.
 THE CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE
• The conflict perspective, which originated primarily
out of Karl Marx's writings on class struggles,
presents society in a different light than do the
functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives.
While these latter perspectives focus on the positive
aspects of society that contribute to its stability, the
Conflict perspective focuses on the negative,
conflicted, and ever-changing nature of society.
• Unlike Functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change,
and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists
challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this
means social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force
social order on the poor and the weak. Conflict theorists, for
example, may interpret an “elite” board of regents raising tuition to
pay for esoteric new programs that raise the prestige of a local
college as self-serving rather than as beneficial for students.
• Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally
ignored the conflict perspective in favor of the functionalist, the
tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable
interest in Conflict theory. They also expanded Marx's idea that the
key conflict in society was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists
find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for
inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so
on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have
conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one
another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis
for the ever-changing nature of society.
• Critics of the conflict
perspective point to its
overly negative view of
society. The theory
ultimately attributes
humanitarian efforts,
altruism, democracy, civil
rights, and other positive
aspects of society to
capitalistic designs to control
the masses, not to inherent
interests in preserving
society and social order.