Understanding society, and indeed the world, is a complex task that is unlikely to ever be fully achieved. There are various social theories that work to explain the workings of society, three of which are structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. The structural functional approach works on the idea that society is made up of systems that are beneficial to all concerned. However, there are substantial problems with this theory, as it does not acknowledge that certain structures need to change even if they seem to be working for the majority. Conflict theory asserts that society functions based on hierarchy and oppression. Lastly, symbolic interactionist theory argues that society works on the basis of subjective beliefs on behalf of each individual. Of the three theories, I believe that conflict theory best explains the workings of society. Governments are an obvious example: a few wealthy people, usually white males, are charged with controlling the country and all of the powerless people in it. The conflict theory is convincing as it acknowledges the true hierarchical set-up of society, and that most important societal developments have occurred as a result of the need for oppression.
The structural-functional approach is a sociological perspective that views society as a complicated system in which various elements relate to one another to encourage harmony and solidity. The perspective takes the view that people’s lives are steered by social structures, which are established patterns of social conduct. Examples of structures range from small gestures such as standing up to shake someone’s hand, to major organisations such as the criminal justice system. Each structure serves a purpose in society and aims to help maintain harmony among its people. There are some major problems with the structural functionalism point of view. Providing society is peaceful and productive, it tends to favour maintaining the status quo over making changes. At times, this could be seen as grossly inappropriate. A good example is inequality between the genders. A supporter of structural functionalism might argue that men having power over women aids the running of society as all people, in other words men and women, are aware of their roles and positions, so there are no disturbances. The theory here is that providing something seems to be working well enough, there is no reason to alter it. Obviously this may cause problems for many people who believe in equality and societal change. Another major criticism of this theory is that there are problems in clarifying whether or a not a society is functioning (Davis, 1959, 757). According to this theory, if a social set up is functioning well as it is, then no changes are necessary. However, who if society is not based on power and oppression, then it is unclear who decides whether or not current society is functioning sufficiently.
Put forward by Karl Marx, conflict theory takes the view that society is in constant conflict as a result of rivalry for wealth. Supporters of this theory believe that society is held together by power and control, as opposed to agreement and compliance. The key premise here is that people in positions of power and with money will do whatever they need in order to maintain their positions, but mostly by oppressing people who are lower down the social hierarchy. When speaking about earning money through employment, Jack Hirshleifer (2001) claims that “it responds to the omnipresent fact of scarcity, there is scope for rational choice on the level of the decision-making agent, and decentralized choices interact to bring about a social equilibrium” (2). As Hirshleifer points out, all people in society work hard to earn money as they know that there are only a finite amount of resources to go around, and that these are not equally distrusted. The conflict theory can explain many types of social experiences, such as revolution and war, and discrimination, to name just a few. Conflict theory puts down the majority of the prominent societal developments to people in power trying to control people. According to conflict theorists, even social democracy was introduced for this purpose, and not to empower all people, as the definition suggests. The idea centres on social inequality and class conflicts. Of the three theories, this theory seems the most independently convincing. It is evident that hierarchy runs society, with some people having power over the majority.
The symbolic interaction theory is another important structure within sociology.
This perspective examines society by concentrating on the symbolic meanings that humans impress on behaviours, events and objects (Blumer, 1986, 2). The premise is that people behave based on what they believe to be true, rather than what is actually true. In other words, their behaviours are based on subjective, rather than objective, views. In this way, supporters of the symbolic interaction theory think that society is socially constructed as a result of subjective human analysis. Human beings analyse others’ behaviours based on their own beliefs, and these analyses create social bonds. Symbolic interactionism can explain some important aspects of social reality, for example gender. Gender is not based on biology, and so gender as a social construct works because a person will interact with another based on their appearance, and in accordance with their preconceived beliefs about that appearance. Socially constructed connotations about gender may impact on how people interact with one another. Interestingly, this perspective does not deny social phenomena such as the class system or power hierarchies (Maines, 1977, 235). However, it does not devote any time to these matters, which could be a reason to be wary of relying on social interactionist theory alone to explain society.
Conflict theory is the most convincing of the three as it takes into account the hierarchical structure of society, and acknowledges that significant societal developments have been as a result of the need for control. While society is so complex and changing that it would be almost impossible to ever totally understand it, sociological theories can help. Structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism are three such theories that attempt to make sense of society and how it functions, effectively or otherwise. The conflict theory certainly seems to be explain this phenomenon. The recent election of Donald Trump is a solid example of how a wealthy white man can become one of the most influential people in the world, without any political background. In western society, wealth means power over others and people who are not born with privilege are very unlikely to ever climb out of oppression and join the people of power.
References
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HVuognZFofoC&dq=definition+of+the+situatio n+symbolic+interaction&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Davis, K. (1959). “The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology.” American Sociological Review. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2088563?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Hirshleifer, Jack. (2001). The Dark Side of the Force: Economic Foundations of Conflict Theory. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X9lg6K5w66AC&dq=conflict+theory&lr=&sou rce=gbs_navlinks_s
Maines, D. (1977). “Social Organization and Social Structure in Symbolic Interactionist Thought.” Annual Review of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.so.03.080177.001315?journal Code=soc
