Three Sociological Perspectives

Words: 2328
Pages: 10

Early sociologists, instrumental in the development of sociology’s three foundational theories, --George Herbert Meade, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marx-- established the framework of symbolic interactionism, functionalism, and conflict theory. Each played key roles in establishing the levels and focuses on analysis used in applying the three theoretical perspectives to the study of human actions, decisions, behavior, and other external elements, which can be explained not only by analyzing the individual scenario, but also by analyzing the context in which that individual is placed. Sometimes, these three main theoretical perspectives can complement, or contradict each other, but no one theory can bring a complete understanding of …show more content…
It doesn’t take into account the macro levels of sociological perspective, but the family working toward the continuance of social inequality can be related to symbolic interactionism and functionalism. How an individual perceives themself is an element of sybolic interactionism, the concern for self-appearance is rooted in how others see the individual in a competitive institution such as the workplace, religious instituion, status in society, family or a group. Awareness of self in relation to how other view that “self,” is what helps individuals focus on goals and where they want to see themselves. Because an individual sets goals for themself in the future, for example; to be wealthy, powerful, admired, desired or accomplished, they bring the focus from a micro level (symbolic); how they see themselves in their own eyes, to the macro level (functionalist); how they think others see them and how they want to live up to or exceed their notion of what others expect of them. This in turn creates a conflict within the self for acceptance and a sence of belonging. So, on all three levels of perception, an individual social situation can be analyzed and criticized by each of the three theories. It is not as concrete and literal as some …show more content…
This debate seems like it should be simple for sociologists to agree on and as to how sociology should be used. But, as stated above, every sociologist –every person, for that matter—can have a different argument and perspective. Every sociologist has a different perspective and moral code. A simple logical answer to this debate is, why understand something without having a useful purpose for its findings? Every human being has questions, concerns, conceptions and perceptions. When they think about these issues, they seek answers, answers to aid them in understanding, and building a moral code of their own. But, they also have motivation to use that knowledge for some purpose. Most people believe others are good in nature and it is that “goodness” that compels us to fix what is wrong, help others, teach others, be socially aware and compasionate to social issues and struggles others may have that may or may not be our own; we still have a need to understand them. When human compassion is applied to social issues, humans have a natural desire to improve. Human beings derive great satisfaction from their own personal growth and want to perfect themselves and others. This is obvious in families. A parent will always want the “best” for their child. There is a natural