Importance Of Sociology As A Field Of Study Essay Example for Free

Importance Of Sociology As A Field Of Study Essay Sociology as a field of study attempts to explain the relationship between an individual and society. Sociological theories are a tool used to explain sociological problems and social structures. (Blumer, 1969) Societies can be viewed as organic structures. This was first explained by Parsons and Durkheim as they developed structural theories. These theories can be applied in education i. e. how students view education. Societies can also be viewed as economic structures. Under this concept, falls the conflict theory developed by Carl Marx. Marx looked at a number of theories that attempt to explain how people’s lives are shaped by social structures. Other theories that share a similar perspective are the functionalist theories. Societies can also be looked as social action. This implies that society shapes how people view themselves. In line with this perspective, sociologists came up with the idea of symbolic interactionism. There are also other ideas that go hand in hand with this idea i. e. GH mead. Lastly, one must apply all the sociological theories stated above and many others that have not been mentioned. For example one can consider Medicalisation of society’s problems. This can be explained by a number of sociological theories like: Marx’s theories, interactionist theories and Durkheiman’ theories. Importance of sociology as a field of study Conflict theory Sociology assists in explaining social change. It helps us to understand what the role of the individual is in changing society. This is best explained by the Conflict theory. This theory does not have only one name connoted to it although the founder of the theory was Karl Marx. There are various regions in the world where sociologists elaborated on this theory. Some of these sociologists are; †¢ Ralf Dahrendorf – Germany †¢ Ludwig Gumpolvicz – Germany †¢ Lewis Coser and Collins – USA †¢ Max Gluchman and Rex – UK (Garfinkel, 1967) The conflict theory’s main idea is that there exists a constant struggle in society and every entity in society is trying to make the most of their reimbursement consequently bringing about social change. This change can come in form of revolutions or it may be political. It focuses on coercion by groups and individuals to alter or control others’ actions. The theory helps us to understand why ideologies like socialism and capitalism. There is a constant struggle within society for paybacks. This theory can be viewed from two angles. The first angle is a radical one; society will forever in conflict while the second angle is that conflict combines with struggle to make up society. This moderate angle is best explained by the functionalism. The latter mentioned theory postulates that every member of society has a specific role to play. Conflict theory can best be perceived as a pyramid. Influential people are at the top and they impose their will upon less powerful people who happen to be the majority. This implies that people in power are taken to be superior and they are the ones responsible for modern day laws, institutions and traditions. This theory can be stretched to explain how morality or deviance is defined. The powerful individuals in society label deeds or actions as immoral if those actions challenge their influence and power. Conflict theory also attempts to explain stratification in society but from an individualistic point of view. It looks at individuals needs instead of society’s needs as a whole. Every individual tries to struggle for respect, goods and services as well as power; these e all very scarce. In this light therefore, individuals belong to organisations that represent their own interests. The theory views organisations as entities that are mostly influenced by external rather than internal factors. (Goffman, 1958) In the theory, there are a number of conflicts that fall under. These include; †¢ Class †¢ Race and ethnicity †¢ Gender †¢ Religion Marx believed that class conflict was caused by differential ownership of property. However, this theory was later challenged by other sociologists who believed that there is more to class than property ownership. These sociologists believe that this is only one aspect. Racial conflict has its root cause in differential power. According to the theory, superior races are those one who are well endowed with power, prestige and education. There are four basic assumptions in this theory. The first is that there is inequality in society’s structures, secondly there is revolution as a result of struggle between a numbers of social classes, thirdly there is competition for resources and lastly war exists to unify or divide society. Conflict can take the form of a strike where workers struggle to gain back control after it has been taken from them by their employers. Another form of a conflict could be through wars. Wars usually represent clashes between social classes. Taking the case of military coups, this is an example of a conflict between the main population and the military. (Durkheim, 1915) Ethnomethodology Ethnomethodology is the study of how people interpret their social world. This theory has its history back in the mid twentieth century and was founded by Garfinkel who was an American sociologist. The theory is quite different form other well known theories. This theory is founded on the fact that there is no order in society; society is chaotic or has the potential to be chaotic. According to the theory, any semblance of order is created by the minds of actors within society it simply does not exist. This is in sharp contrast to other well known theories. Social order may be defined as the systematic pattern of behaviour within society. It opposes the fact that actions are not thought out and are simply haphazard. Ethnomethodologists believe that individuals encounter several experiences in their lives. These individuals try to make sense of these encounters by placing them into a form of organised system. They believe in a documentary method. Here, individuals simply pick out certain events within a social situation and try to make sense of them. After they have organised those events into a pattern, then they use that pattern as a template to explain other situations that may arise. Garnfinkel used an experiment to demonstrate this theory. He got a number of students and instructed them to ask a supervisor about a number of issues on their mind. The students could not see the advisor but could talk to him. They asked him a number of questions and this advisor could only say yes or no. What the students did not know was the advisor was reading out a list of responses that did not match their questions in any way. It was found that most of the responses did not make logical sense but most of the students tried to interpret them nonetheless. They did not question the integrity of the advisor but they tried to compare past responses with present ones in order to come up with an orderly pattern. For example one of the students thought that he should quit school and asked the advisor this. The advisor told him ‘no’ and out of disbelief the student repeated this same question after which the advisor said ‘yes’. It was found that this particular student did not dismiss the advisor but tried to make sense of the situation. According to the theory, the students were trying to form sense out of senselessness. They were trying to turn chaos into order. Garfinkel introduces the idea of indexicality. This means that human beings have a tendency to index things that occur to them i. e. they always try to put things within a certain social context. They must relate it to other things that have occurred to them before or during a particular scene. For example, the interaction that took place between the students and the advisor followed a certain path because the students held the advisor in high esteem. This implies that if the student could see what was happening with the advisor behind the screen that had covered him, or if their classmates asked answered their questions, then their reactions would have been totally different. This is because the students would simply have formed another documentary. People who adhere to this theory believe that all human beings have preconceived notions about their daily lives. This means that if a sudden change was brought into someone’s life their reactions are quite different. This is justified by the fact that it would be very chaotic if we looked at things differently at all times. We must become familiar with some aspects of our lives so as to be able to Symbolic interactionism This theory has its history in the late nineteenth century. It was pioneered by a sociologist from Germany called Marx Weber. The theory is best known for its subjectivity rather than its objectivity. Interactionists focus on individuals rather than on society as a whole. They perceive human beings as creatures whose behaviours are reactive or subject to the approval of others. This is because all actions, according to them, are like symbolic actions which are interpreted differently according to one’s perspective. This theory also looks at human beings as symbolic objects who can think and react to situations. This means that individuals within a society are active participants of their society. They determine what happens to them. Sociologists adhering to this theory believe that we are not passive entities who must mould themselves to society’s rules and standards. This theory focuses on external issues and simple interactions. It cannot be used to interpret deeper social settings like capitalism. It is also quite crucial to note that this theory perceives society’s norms as transient and constantly changing. Stability and order in society is determined by negotiations. The systems themselves are not stable but the means by which these systems in society are created is stable. (Merton, 1968) The theory therefore points one on the direction of roles played by people in society. The theory places importance in role making and role taking. This means that individuals must put themselves in a certain perspective in order to understand another person’s point of view. Studies on interactionism are therefore done through active role taking. This is because they believe that one must interact thoroughly with another party in order to understand the reason why they made their decision. However critics have claimed that the theory is too narrow and cannot be applied to macro situations. It has also been criticised for its impressionism during research methods. (George, 1964) Functionalism The theory was pioneered by a French sociologist called Emile Durkheim back in the mid to late nineteenth century. This theory compares the individual with his/her society and also scientific method of analysing society. This implies that one can be able to study the social world using observation and analysis. It also assumes that studies of society can be done freely and without any bias. Another crucial aspect of the theory is the organic aspect of society. It compares society to an organism. That there are various parts of the body that each has their own function. This is analogous to society and its members. It is also important to note the homeostatic nature of interactions. This theory looks at society as a system that must remain in equilibrium. Any deviation from this is corrected by a number of mechanisms like gossip or even imprisonment depending on the scenario. Conclusion Interactionists believe that social order is continuously remade as people interact. Social order is not static and changes with time. Functionalists believe that order within society exists as a result of an agreement between members of society. That is collective behavioural patterns that are regarded as the norm in society. Again, the theory strongly affirms that social order does exist. Marxists believe that social order is created from a struggle to gain control of limited resources while ethnomethodologists mould situations to fit into a certain behavioural pattern. All these theories attempt to explain why human beings behave the way the do either as individuals or as a group on a macro scale. This is the essence of sociology.