in durkheim’s view of society, people come to believe what society expects them to believe because
Three Major Perspectives in Folklore
The pioneering European sociologists, however, also offered a broad conceptualization of the fundamentals of society and its workings. Their views form the ground for today'due south theoretical perspectives, or paradigms, which provide sociologists with an orienting framework—a philosophical position—for request sure kinds of questions about society and its people.
Sociologists today employ three main 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 (see Tabular array 1).
The symbolic interactionist perspective
Co-ordinate to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they human activity according to their subjective estimation of these symbols. Exact conversations, in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this subjective interpretation specially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the "sender," and, during effective advice, they hopefully have the same meaning for the "receiver." In other terms, words are not static "things"; they require intention and estimation. Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the world around them. Of course, anything tin can serve as a symbol every bit long every bit it refers to something beyond itself. Written music serves equally an example. The black dots and lines become more than than mere marks on the folio; they refer to notes organized in such a way equally to brand musical sense. Thus, symbolic interactionists give serious thought to how people act, and then seek to determine what meanings individuals assign to their ain actions and symbols, also every bit to those of others.
Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the American institution of marriage. Symbols may include nuptials bands, vows of life‐long commitment, a white conjugal wearing apparel, a wedding cake, a Church building ceremony, and flowers and music. American lodge attaches general meanings to these symbols, simply individuals also maintain their own perceptions of what these and other symbols mean. For example, i of the spouses may see their round wedding rings as symbolizing "never catastrophe love," while the other may run into them as a mere fiscal expense. Much faulty communication tin event from differences in the perception of the same events and symbols.
Critics merits that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the "large picture." In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the larger bug of society by focusing besides closely on the "trees" (for example, the size of the diamond in the hymeneals ring) rather than the "forest" (for example, the quality of the wedlock). The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on private interactions.
The functionalist perspective
According to the functionalist perspective, as well called functionalism, each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The government, or state, provides educational activity for the children of the family, which in plough pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children abound up to have good jobs so that they tin raise and support their ain families. In the procedure, the children become law‐constant, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of order produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of club then must adapt to recapture a new gild, stability, and productivity. For instance, during a fiscal 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 social club, 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 2 forms:
- Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society maintain similar values and behavior and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity near 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 class of social cohesion that arises when the people in a order are interdependent, merely concord to varying values and behavior 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 man beliefs. Among these American functionalist sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who divides human functions into 2 types: manifest functions are intentional and obvious, while latent functions are unintentional and not obvious. The manifest role of attending a church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship every bit office of a religious community, just its latent function may be to help members learn to discern personal from institutional values. With common sense, manifest functions become easily apparent. Nonetheless this is non necessarily the case for latent functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed. A sociological arroyo in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of smaller parts and the functions of the whole.
Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an result such as divorce. Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the office of order'southward members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in irresolute their social environment, even when such modify may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees agile social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate naturally for whatsoever problems that may arise.
The disharmonize perspective
The conflict perspective, which originated primarily out of Karl Marx'due south writings on class struggles, presents society in a dissimilar light than do the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives. While these latter perspectives focus on the positive aspects of social club 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 alter, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists claiming the condition 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 case, 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 proceeds considerable interest in disharmonize theory. They also expanded Marx's thought that the key conflict in gild was strictly economic. Today, disharmonize theorists notice social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and and then on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have alien values and agendas, causing them to compete against i another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever‐changing nature of society.
Critics of the disharmonize 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 club.
Source: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/the-sociological-perspective/three-major-perspectives-in-sociology
0 Response to "in durkheim’s view of society, people come to believe what society expects them to believe because"
Post a Comment