Perspectives Essays - Criminology, Sociological Paradigms

Three Sociological Perspectives PAUL COLOMY In this chapter, Colony overviews the three perspectives most often associated with sociology: functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic Interactionism. Each of these three theories has contributed a great deal to our understanding of human behavior and group life. The first two, functionalism and conflict, are considered to be macro theories of society, examining how the social structure operates to determine people's behavior. The last theory, symbolic Interactionism, is a micro theory of society, focusing on social interaction and how people act in face-to-face meetings with one another. Each theory has its strengths and weaknesses as an explanatory scheme, but taken together, you will see the power of sociological reasoning. From this article, can you differentiate the major foundational ideas that the theories represent? Do you have other ideas not represented by these three approaches that account for social behavior? W hen conducting research, sociologists typically draw on one or more perspectives. Sociological perspectives provide very general ways of con?ceptualizing the social world and its basic elements. A perspective consists of a set of fairly abstract assumptions about the nature of human action and the character of social organization. Each perspective can be likened to a spotlight that brightly illuminates select aspects of behavior and social relations while leaving other areas shrouded in darkness. Because a single perspective supplies only a partial or one-sided view, a comprehensive understanding of social life requires becoming familiar with several different perspectives. Sociology contains a large number of distinct perspectives, and they can be divided into two broad categories: micro and macro. In very general terms, micro perspectives are oriented toward small time and small space, while macro per-spectives are oriented toward big time and big space (Collins 1981). That is, micro perspectives are usually concerned with the conduct of individuals and small groups as it unfolds in relatively small spatial contexts and over short durations of time. Macro perspectives, on the other hand, focus on larger entities?not individuals and small groups, but institutions, entire societies, and even the global system?and on how these entities emerge, maintain themselves, and change over decades, centuries, and millennia. The following section outlines one micro perspective (symbolic Interactionism) and two macro perspectives (functionalism and the conflict approach). SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM Symbol interactionism's intellectual roots reside in pragmatism, a philosophical tradition developed by such prominent, early twentieth-century American thinkers as John Dewey, William James, George Herbert Mead, and Charles Peirce. The sociological implications of pragmatism were articulated by several Innovative sociologists, including Robert Park, W. I. Thomas, Herbert Blumer, Everett Hughes, and Erving Goffinan, who taught or studied at the University of Chicago between 1910 and 1960. Because it originated at the University of Chicago, symbolic Interactionism is sometimes referred to as the Chicago School. Symbolic Interactionism is based on five core ideas. First, it assumes that Luman beings act in terms of the meanings they assign to objects in their : Environment. (Integrationists define the term object very broadly to include Material things, events, symbols, actions, and other people and groups.) Using Lightly different terminology to make the same point, integrationists maintain that people's conduct is powerfully influenced by their definition of the situation. this assumption can be clarified by contrasting it to a rudimentary model of acial action advanced by a psychological perspective known as behaviorism. The Behaviorist approach characterizes conduct as a response to objective stimuli, and Suggests that human behavior resembles a series of stimulus-response chains: Stimulus ?> response. Rejecting the notion that individuals respond directly to an objective Stimulus, integrationists insist that people interpret, or assign meanings to, the stimulus: fore they act: Stimulus ?> interpretation ?> response. Athletes' reactions to coaches' criticisms, for instance, depend largely on whether they interpret that criticism as a constructive attempt to improve their play or as a malicious attack on their character. Even when a definition of the situation is demonstrably false, it can still exert a powerful effect on behavior. As W. I. Thomas once said, "A situation defined as real is real in its consequences." Many adults, for example, perceive Halloween as filled with potential danger, and believe that their young children are vulnerable to sadistic strangers dispensing drug-tainted candy or apples laced with razor blades. The belief that such acts of Halloween sadism are widespread is, in fact, an urban legend with virtually no factual basis (Best and Horiuchi 1985). Never- 'less, millions of parents are convinced that