SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 1

Symbolic interactonalism
The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a major framework of sociological theory. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and rely upon in the process of social interaction. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American philosopher George Herbert Mead introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.

Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings that people impose on objects, events, and behaviors. Subjective meanings are given primacy because it is believed that people behave based on what they believe and not just on what is objectively true. Thus, society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation. People interpret one another’s behavior and it is these interpretations that form the social bond. These interpretations are called the“definition of the situation.”

For example, why would young people smoke cigarettes even when all objective medical evidence points to the dangers of doing so? The answer is in the definition of the situation that people create. Studies find that teenagers are well informed about the risks of tobacco, but they also think that smoking is cool, that they themselves will be safe from harm, and that smoking projects a positive image to their peers.

So, the symbolic meaning of smoking overrides that actual facts regarding smoking and risk.

Some fundamental aspects of our social experience and identities, like race andgender, can be understood through the symbolic interactionist lens. Having no biological bases at all, both race and gender are social constructs that function based on what we believe to be true about people, given what they look like.

We use socially constructed meanings of race and gender to help us decide who to interact with, how to do so, and to help us determine, sometimes inaccurately, the meaning of a person's words or actions.

One shocking example of how this theoretical concept plays out within the social construct of race is manifested in the fact that many people, regardless of race, believe that lighter skinned blacks and Latinos are smarter than their darker skinned counterparts. This phenomenon occurs because of the racist stereotype--the meaning--that has been encoded in skin color--the symbol--over centuries. In terms of gender, we see the problematic way in which meaning is attached to the symbols "man" and "woman" in the sexist trend of college students routinely rating male professors more highly than female ones.

Critics of this theory claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the “big picture.” In other words, symbolic interactionistsmay miss the larger issues of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” rather than the “forest”. The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions.

In the case of smoking, the functionalist perspective might miss the powerful role that the institution of mass media plays in shaping perceptions of smoking through advertising, and by portraying smoking in film and television. In the cases of race and gender, this perspective would not account for social forces likesystemic racism or gender discrimination, which strongly influence what we believe race and gender mean.

Conflict theory

Conflict theory states that tensions and conflicts arise when resources, status, and power are unevenly distributed between groups in society and that these conflicts become the engine for social change. In this context, power can be understood as control of material resources and accumulated wealth, control of politics and the institutions that make up society, and one's social status relative to others (determined not just by class but by race, gender, sexuality, culture, and religion, among other things).

MARX'S CONFLICT THEORY

Conflict theory originated in the work of Karl Marx, who focused on the causes and consequences of class conflict between the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production and the capitalists) and the proletariat (the working class and the poor). Focusing on the economic, social, and political implications of the rise of capitalism in Europe, Marx theorized that this system, premised on the existence of a powerful minority class (the bourgeoisie) and an oppressed majority class (the proletariat), created class conflict because the interests of the two were at odds, and resources were unjustly distributed among them.

Within this system an unequal social order was maintained through ideological coercion which created consensus--and acceptance of the values, expectations, and conditions as determined by the bourgeoisie. Marx theorized that the work of producing consensus was done in the "superstructure" of society, which is composed of social institutions, political structures, and culture, and what it produced consensus for was the "base," the economic relations of production.

Marx reasoned that as the socio-economic conditions worsened for the proletariat, they would develop a class consciousness that revealed their exploitation at the hands of the wealthy capitalist class of bourgeoisie, and then they would revolt, demanding changes to smooth the conflict.

According to Marx, if the changes made to appease conflict maintained a capitalist system, then the cycle of conflict would repeat. However, if the changes made created a new system, like socialism, then peace and stability would be achieved.

EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT THEORY

Many social theorists have built on Marx's conflict theory to bolster it, grow it, and refine it over the years. Explaining why Marx's theory of revolution did not manifest in his lifetime, Italian scholar and activist Antonio Gramsci argued that the power of ideology was stronger than Marx had realized and that more work needed to be done to overcome cultural hegemony, or rule through common sense. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, critical theorists who were part of The Frankfurt School, focused their work on how the rise of mass culture--mass produced art, music, and media--contributed to the maintenance of cultural hegemony. More recently, C. Wright Mills drew on conflict theory to describe the rise of a tiny "power elite" composed of military, economic, and political figures who have ruled America from the mid-twentieth century.

Many others have drawn on conflict theory to develop other types of theory within the social sciences, includingfeminist theory, critical race theory, postmodern and postcolonial theory, queer theory, post-structural theory, andtheories of globalization and world systems.

So, while initially conflict theory described class conflicts specifically, it has lent itself over the years to studies of how other kinds of conflicts, like those premised on race, gender, sexuality, religion, culture, and nationality, among others, are a part of contemporary social structures, and how they affect our lives.

APPLYING CONFLICT THEORY

Conflict theory and its variants are used by many sociologists today to study a wide range of social problems. Examples include:

Functionalist theory

The functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, is one of the major theoretical perspectives in sociology. Ithas its origins in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was especially interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stable. As such, it is a theory that focuses on the macro-level of social structure, rather than the micro-level of everyday life. Notable theorists include Herbert Spencer, Talcott Parsons, and Robert K. Merton.

OVERVIEW

Functionalism interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. Society is more than the sum of its parts; rather, each part of society is functional for the stability of the whole. Durkheim actually envisioned society as an organism, and just like within an organism, each component plays a necessary part, but none can function alone, and one experiences a crisis or fails, other parts must adapt to fill the void in some way.

Within functionalist theory, the different parts of society are primarily composed of social institutions, each of which is designed to fill different needs, and each of which has particular consequences for the form and shape of society. The parts all depend on each other. The core institutions defined by sociology and which are important to understand for this theory include: family, government, economy, media, education, and religion.

According to functionalism, an institution only exists because it serves a vital role in the functioning of society. If it no longer serves a role, an institution will die away. When new needs evolve or emerge, new institutions will be created to meet them.

Let's consider the relationships between and functions of some core institutions.

In most societies, the government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. The family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. From the functionalist perspective, if all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to produce new forms of order, stability, and productivity.

Functionalism emphasizes the consensus and order that exist in society, focusing on social stability and shared public values. From this perspective, disorganization in the system, such asdeviant behavior, leads to change because societal components must adjust to achieve stability. When one part of the system is not working or is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, which leads to social change.

The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among American sociologists in the 1940s and 50s. While European functionalists originally focused on explaining the inner workings of social order, American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of human behavior.

Among these American functionalist sociologists is Robert K. Merton, who divided human functions into two types: manifest functions, which are intentional and obvious, and latent functions, which are unintentional and not obvious. The manifest function of attending a church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship as part of a religious community, but its latent function may be to help members learn to discern personal from institutional values. With common sense, manifest functions become easily apparent. Yet this is not necessarily the case for latent functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed.

Functionalism has been critiqued by many sociologists for its neglect of the often negative implications of social order. Some critics, like Italian theoristAntonio Gramsci, claim that the perspective justifies the status quo, and the process of cultural hegemony which maintains it.

Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when doing so may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees agitating for social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate in a seemingly natural way for any problems that may arise.

Feminist theory

Feminist theory is a major branch of theory within sociology that is distinctive for how its creators shift their analytic lens, assumptions, and topical focus away from the male viewpoint and experience. In doing so, feminist theory shines light on social problems, trends, and issues that are otherwise overlooked or misidentified by the historically dominant male perspective within social theory.

Key areas of focus within feminist theory include discrimination and exclusion on the basis of sex and gender, objectification, structural and economic inequality, power and oppression, andgender roles and stereotypes, among others.

OVERVIEW

Many people incorrectly believe that feminist theory focuses exclusively on girls and women and that it has an inherent goal of promoting the superiority of women over men. In reality, feminist theory has always been about viewing the social world in a way that illuminates the forces that create and support inequality, oppression, and injustice, and in doing so, promotes the pursuit of equality and justice.

That said, since the experiences and perspectives of women and girls were historically excluded from social theory and social science, much feminist theory has focused on their interactions and experiences within society in order to ensure that half the world's population is not left out of how we see and understand social forces, relations, and problems.

Most feminist theorists throughout history have been women, however, today feminist theory is created by people of all genders.

By shifting the focus of social theory away from the perspectives and experiences of men, feminist theorists have created social theories that are more inclusive and creative than those which assume the social actor to always be a man.

Part of what makes feminist theory creative and inclusive is that it often considers how systems of power and oppression interact, which is to say it does not just focus on gendered power and oppression, but on how it might interact with systemic racism, a hierarchical class system, sexuality, nationality, and (dis)ability, among other things.

Key areas of focus include the following.

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Some feminist theory provides an analytic framework for understanding how women's location in, and experience of, social situations differ from men's. For example, cultural feminists look to the different values associated with womanhood and femininity as a reason why men and women experience the social world differently. Other feminist theorists believe that the different roles assigned to women and men within institutions better explain gender difference, including the sexual division of labor in the household. Existential and phenomenological feminists focus on how women have been marginalized and defined as “other” in patriarchal societies. Some feminist theorists focus specifically on how masculinity is developed through socialization, and how its development interacts with the process of developing feminity in girls.

GENDER INEQUALITY

Feminist theories that focus on gender inequality recognize that women's location in, and experience of, social situations are not only different but also unequal to men's. Liberal feminists argue that women have the same capacity as men for moral reasoning and agency, but that patriarchy, particularly the sexist division of labor, has historically denied women the opportunity to express and practice this reasoning. These dynamics serve to shove women into the private sphere of the household and to exclude them from full participation in public life. Liberal feminists point out that heterosexual marriage is a site of gender inequality and that women do not benefit from being married as men do. Indeed, married women have higher levels of stress than unmarried women and married men.

According to liberal feminists, the sexual division of labor in both the public and private spheres needs to be altered in order for women to achieve equality.

GENDER OPPRESSION

Theories of gender oppression go further than theories of gender difference and gender inequality by arguing that not only are women different from or unequal to men, but that they are actively oppressed, subordinated, and even abused by men. Power is the key variable in the two main theories of gender oppression: psychoanalytic feminism and radical feminism. Psychoanalytic feminists attempt to explain power relations between men and women by reformulating Freud's theories of the subconscious and unconscious, human emotions, and childhood development. They believe that conscious calculation cannot fully explain the production and reproduction of patriarchy. Radical feminists argue that being a woman is a positive thing in and of itself, but that this is not acknowledged in patriarchal societies where women are oppressed. They identify physical violence as being at the base of patriarchy, but they think that patriarchy can be defeated if women recognize their own value and strength, establish a sisterhood of trust with other women, confront oppression critically, and form female separatist networks in the private and public spheres.

STRUCTURAL OPPRESSION

Structural oppression theories posit that women's oppression and inequality are a result of capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Socialist feminists agree with Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels that the working class is exploited as a consequence of capitalism, but they seek to extend this exploitation not just to class but also to gender. Intersectionality theorists seek to explain oppression and inequality across a variety of variables, including class, gender, race, ethnicity, and age. They offer the important insight that not all women experience oppression in the same way, and that the same forces that work to oppress women and girls also oppress people of color and other marginalized groups.

One way in which structural oppression of women, specifically the economic kind, manifests in society is in the gender wage gap, which sees men routinely earn more for the same work as women. An intersectional view of this situation shows us that women of color, and men of color too, are even further penalized relative to the earnings of white men. In the late-twentieth century, this strain of feminist theory was extended to account for the globalization of capitalism and how its methods of production and of accumulating wealth center on the exploitation of women workers around the world.

Critical theory

Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep us from a full and true understanding of how the world works.

Critical theory emerged out of the Marxist tradition and it was developed by a group of sociologists at the University of Frankfurt in Germany who referred to themselves as The Frankfurt School.

HISTORY AND OVERVIEW

Critical theory as it is known today can be traced to Marx's critique of economy and society put forth in his many works. It is inspired greatly by Marx's theoretical formulation of the relationship between economic base and ideological superstructure, and tends to focus on how power and domination operate, in particular, in the realm of the superstructure.

Following in Marx's critical footsteps, Hungarian György Lukács and Italian Antonio Gramsci developed theories that explored the cultural and ideological sides of power and domination. Both Lukács and Gramsci focused their critique on the social forces that prevent people from seeing and understanding the forms of power and domination that exist in society and affect their lives.

Shortly following the period when Lukács and Gramsci developed and published their ideas, The Institute for Social Research was founded at the University of Frankfurt, and the Frankfurt School of critical theorists took shape.

It is the work of those associated with the Frankfurt School—including Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, and Herbert Marcuse—that is considered the definition and heart of critical theory.

Like Lukács and Gramsci, these theorists focused on ideology and cultural forces as facilitators of domination and barriers to true freedom.

The contemporary politics and economic structures of the time greatly influenced their thought and writing, as they existed within the rise of national socialism—including the rise of the Nazi regime, state capitalism, and the rise and spread of mass-produced culture.

Max Horkheimer defined critical theory in the book Traditional and Critical Theory. In this work Horkheimer asserted that a critical theory must do two important things: it must account for the whole of society within historical context, and it should seek to offer a robust and holistic critique by incorporating insights from all social sciences.

Further, Horkheimer stated that a theory can only be considered a true critical theory if it is explanatory, practical, and normative, meaning that the theory must adequately explain the social problems that exist, it must offer practical solutions for how to respond to them and make change, and it must clearly abide the norms of criticism established by the field.

With this formulation Horkheimer condemned "traditional" theorists for producing works that fail to question power, domination, and the status quo, thus building on Gramsci's critique of the role of intellectuals in processes of domination.

KEY TEXTS

Those associated with the Frankfurt School focused their critique on the centralization of economic, social, and political control that was transpiring around them. Key texts from this period include:

Critical and Traditional Theory (Horkheimer)
Dialectic of the Enlightenment (Adorno and Horkheimer)
Knowledge and Human Interests (Habermas)
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas)
One-Dimensional Man (Marcuse)
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Benjamin)

CRITICAL THEORY TODAY

Over the years the goals and tenets of critical theory have been adopted by many social scientists and philosophers who have come after the Frankfurt School. We can recognize critical theory today in many feminist theories and feminist approaches to conducting social science, in critical race theory, cultural theory, in gender and queer theory, and in media theory and media studies.

Labeling theory

Labeling theory posits that people come to identify and behave in ways that reflect how others label them. It is most commonly associated with the sociology of crime and deviance, where it is used to point out how social processes of labeling and treating someone as criminally deviant actually fosters deviant behavior ?and has negative repercussions for that person because others are likely to be biased against them because of the label.

ORIGINS

Labeling theory is rooted in the idea of the social construction of reality, which is central to the field of sociology, and is linked to the symbolic interactionist perspective. As an area of focus, it flourished within American sociology during the 1960s, thanks in large part to sociologist Howard Becker. However, the ideas at the center of it can be traced back to the work of founding French sociologist Emile Durkheim. The theory ofAmerican sociologist George Herbert Mead, which focused on the social construction of the self as a process involving interactions with others, was also influential in its development. Others involved in the development of labeling theory and the conduct of research related to it include Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, Albert Memmi, Erving Goffman, and David Matza.

OVERVIEW

Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and criminal behavior.

It begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. Definitions of criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions. Deviance is therefore not a set of characteristics of individuals or groups, but rather it is a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants and the context in which criminality is being interpreted.

In order to understand the nature of deviance itself, we must first understand why some people are tagged with a deviant label and others are not. Those who represent forces of law and order and those who enforce the boundaries of what is considered normal behavior, such as the police, court officials, experts, and school authorities, provide the main source of labeling. By applying labels to people, and in the process creating categories of deviance, these people reinforce the power structure of society.

Many of the rules that define deviance and the contexts in which deviant behavior is labeled as deviant are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older people for younger people, and by ethnic and racial majorities for minority groups. In other words, the more powerful and dominant groups in society create and apply deviant labels to the subordinate groups.

For example, many children engage in activities such as breaking windows, stealing fruit from other people’s trees, climbing into other people’s yards, or playing hooky from school. In affluent neighborhoods, these acts may be regarded by parents, teachers, and police as innocent aspects of the process of growing up.

In poor areas, on the other hand, these same activities might be seen as tendencies towards juvenile delinquency, which suggests that differences of class and race play an important role in the process of assigning labels of deviance. In fact, research has shown that Black girls and boys are disciplined more frequently and more harshly by teachers and school administrators than are their peers of other races, though there is no evidence to suggest that they misbehave more frequently. Similarly, and with much more severe consequences, statistics that show that police kill Black people at a far higher rate than whites, even when they are unarmed and have committed no crime, suggests that the misapplication of deviant labels as a result of racial stereotypes is at play.

Once a person is labeled as deviant, it is extremely difficult to remove that label.

The deviant person becomes stigmatized as a criminal or deviant and is likely to be considered, and treated, as untrustworthy by others. The deviant individual is then likely to accept the label that has been attached, seeing himself or herself as deviant, and act in a way that fulfills the expectations of that label. Even if the labeled individual does not commit any further deviant acts than the one that caused them to be labeled, getting rid of that label can be very hard and time-consuming. For example, it is usually very difficult for a convicted criminal to find employment after release from prison because of their label as ex-criminal. They have been formally and publicly labeled a wrongdoer and are treated with suspicion likely for the remainder of their lives.

KEY TEXTS

Crime and Community by Frank Tannenbaum (1938)
Outsiders by Howard Becker (1963)
Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity by Erving Goffman (1963)
The Colonizer and the Colonized by Albert Memmi (1965)
Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control by Edwin Lemert (1967)
Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs by Paul Willis (1977)
Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys by Victor Rios (2011)
Women Without Class: Girls, Race and Identity by Julie Bettie (2014)

CRITIQUES OF LABELING THEORY

One critique of labeling theory is that it emphasizes the interactive process of labeling and ignores the processes and structures that lead to the deviant acts. Such processes might include differences in socialization, attitudes, and opportunities, and how social and eocnomic structures impact these.

A second critique of labeling theory is that it is still not clear whether or not labeling actually has the effect of increasing deviant behavior. Delinquent behavior tends to increase following conviction, but is this the result of labeling itself as the theory suggests? It is very difficult to say, since many other factors may be involved, including increased interaction with other delinquents and learning new criminal opportunities.

Social learning theory

Overview

Social learning theory is a theory that attempts to explain socialization and its effect on the development of the self. There are many different theories that explain how people become socialized, including psychoanalytic theory, functionalism, conflict theory, andsymbolic interaction theory. Social learning theory, like these others, looks at the individual learning process, the formation of self, and the influence of society in socializing individuals.

Social learning theory considers the formation of one’s identity to be a learned response to social stimuli. It emphasizes the societal context of socialization rather than the individual mind. This theory postulates that an individual’s identity is not the product of the unconscious (such as the belief of psychoanalytic theorists), but instead is the result of modeling oneself in response to the expectations of others. Behaviors and attitudes develop in response to reinforcement and encouragement from the people around us. While social learning theorists acknowledge that childhood experience is important, they also believe that the identity people acquire is formed more by the behaviors and attitudes of others.

Social learning theory has it’s roots in psychology and was shaped greatly by psychologist Albert Bandura. Sociologists most often use social learning theory to understand crime and deviance.

Social Learning Theory and Crime/Deviance

According to social learning theory, people engage in crime because of their association with others who engage in crime. Their criminal behavior is reinforced and they learn beliefs that are favorable to crime. They essentially have criminal models that they associate with.

As a consequence, these individuals come to view crime as something that is desirable, or at least justifiable in certain situations. Learning criminal or deviant behavior is the same as learning to engage in conforming behavior: it is done through association with or exposure to others. In fact, association with delinquent friends is the best predictor of delinquent behavior other than prior delinquency.

Social learning theory postulates that there are three mechanisms by which individuals learn to engage in crime: differential reinforcement, beliefs, and modeling.

Differential reinforcement of crime.Differential reinforcement of crime means that individuals can teach others to engage in crime by reinforcing and punishing certain behaviors. Crime is more likely to occur when it 1. Is frequently reinforced and infrequently punished; 2. Results in large amounts of reinforcement (such as money, social approval, or pleasure) and little punishment; and 3. Is more likely to be reinforced than alternative behaviors. Studies show that individuals who are reinforced for their crime are more likely to engage in subsequent crime, especially when they are in situations similar to those that were previously reinforced.

Beliefs favorable to crime. On top of reinforcing criminal behavior, other individuals can also teach a person beliefs that are favorable to crime. Surveys and interviews with criminals suggest that beliefs favoring crime fall into three categories. First is the approval of certain minor forms of crime, such as gambling, “soft” drug use, and for adolescents, alcohol use and curfew violation. Second is the approval of or justification of certain forms of crime, including some serious crimes. These people believe that crime is generally wrong, but that some criminal acts are justifiable or even desirable in certain situations. For example, many people will say that fighting is wrong, however that it is justified if the individual has been insulted or provoked. Third, some people hold certain general values that are more conducive to crime and make crime appear as a more attractive alternative to other behaviors.

For example, individuals who have a large desire for excitement or thrills, those who have a disdain for hard work and a desire for quick and easy success, or those who wish to be seen as “tough” or “macho” might view crime in a more favorable light than others.

The imitation of criminal models. Behavior is not only a product of beliefs and reinforcements or punishments that individuals receive. It is also a product of the behavior of those around us. Individuals often model or imitate the behavior of others, especially if it is someone that individual looks up to or admires. For example, an individual who witnesses someone they respect committing a crime, who is then reinforced for that crime, is then more likely to commit a crime themselves.

Structural strain theory

Strain theory explains deviant behavior as an inevitable outcome of the strain individuals experience when society does not provide adequate and approved means to achieve culturally valued goals. For example, when a society places cultural value on economic success and wealth, but only provides legally sanctioned means for s small portion of the population to achieve these goals, those excluded may turn to unconventional or criminal means of attaining them.

STRAIN THEORY - AN OVERVIEW

Strain theory was developed by American sociologist Robert K. Merton. It is rooted in the functionalist perspective on deviance and connected to Émile Durkheim's theory of anomie. Merton's theory of strain goes as follows.

Societies are composed of two core aspects: culture and social structure. It is in the realm of culture that our values, beliefs, goals, and identities are developed. These are developed in response to the existing social structure of society, which is supposed to provide the means for us to achieve our goals and live out positive identities. However, often, the goals that are popular within our culture are not in balance with the means made available within the social structure. When this happens, strain can occur, and according to Merton, deviant behavior is likely to follow.

Merton developed this theory from crime statistics, using inductive reasoning.

He examined crime statistics by class and found that people from lower socioeconomic classes were more likely to commit crimes that involve acquisition (stealing in one form or another). Merton then developed strain theory to explain why this is so.

According to his theory, when people cannot attain the "legitimate goal" of economic success through what society defines as the "legitimate means" -- dedication and hard work, they may turn to other illegitimate means of attaining that goal.

For Merton, this explained why people with less money and items that demonstrated material success would steal. The cultural value on economic success is so great that the social force of it pushes some to attain it or the appearance of it through any means necessary.

FIVE WAYS OF RESPONDING TO STRAIN

Merton noted that the deviant response to strain was just one of five types of responses that he observed in society. He referred to this response as "innovation" and defined it as the use of illegitimate or unconventional means of obtaining the culturally valued goal.

Other responses include the following:

Conformity: This applies to people who accept both the culturally valued goals and the legitimate ways of pursuing and attaining them, and who go along in step with these norms.
Ritualism: This describes those who pursue the legitimate means of attaining goals, but who set more humble and achievable goals for themselves.
Retreatism: When people both reject the culturally valued goals of a society and the legitimate means of attaining them and live their lives in a way that evades participation in both, they can be described as retreating from society.
Rebellion: This applies to people and groups that both reject the culturally valued goals of a society and the legitimate means of attaining them, but instead of retreating, work to replace both with different goals and means.

APPLYING STRAIN THEORY TO THE CONTEMPORARY US SOCIETY

In the US, economic success is a goal that most everybody strives for. Doing so is crucial to having a positive identity and sense of self in a social system organized by a capitalist economy and aconsumerist lifestyle. In the US, there are two key legitimate and approved means to achieving this: education and work. However, access to these means is not equally distributed in U.S. society. Access is brokered by class, race, gender, sexuality, and cultural capital, among other things.

Merton would suggest that what results, then, is strain between the cultural goal of economic success and unequal access to available means and that this leads to the use of deviant behavior -- like theft, selling things on the black or gray markets, or embezzling -- in pursuit of economic success.

People marginalized and oppressed byracism and classism are most likely to experience this particular strain because they aim for the same goals as the rest of society, but a society rife with systemic inequalities limits their opportunities for success. These individuals are therefore more likely than others to turn to unsanctioned means as a way to achieve economic success.

One could also frame the Black Lives Matter movement and protests against police violence that have raked the nation since 2014 as examples of rebellion in the context of strain. Many Black citizens and their allies have turned to protest and disruption as a mean for achieving the basic forms of respect and provision of opportunities that are required to attain cultural goals and that are currently denied to people of color by systemic racism.

CRITIQUES OF STRAIN THEORY

Many sociologists have relied on Merton's strain theory to provide theoretical explanations for types of deviant behavior and to provide a basis for research that illustrates the connections between social-structural conditions and the values and behavior of people in society. In this regard, many find this theory valuable and useful.

However many sociologists also critique the concept of deviance and argue that deviance itself is a social construct that unjustly characterizes anormative behavior, and can lead to social policies that seek to control people instead of fixing problems within the social structure itself.

Rational choice theory

Overview

Economics plays a huge role in human behavior. That is, people are often motivated by money and the possibility of making a profit, calculating the likely costs and benefits of any action before deciding what to do. This way of thinking is called rational choice theory.

Rational choice theory was pioneered by sociologist George Homas, who in 1961 laid the basic framework for exchange theory, which he grounded in assumptions drawn from behavioral psychology.

During the 1960s and 1970s, other theorists (Blau, Coleman, and Cook) extended and enlarged his framework and helped to develop a more formal model of rational choice. Over the years, rational choice theorists have become increasingly mathematical. Even Marxistshave come to see rational choice theory as the basis of a Marxist theory of class and exploitation.

Human Actions Are Calculated And Individualistic

Economic theories look at the ways in which the production, distribution, and consumptions of goods and services is organized through money. Rational choice theorists have argued that the same general principles can be used to understand human interactions where time, information, approval, and prestige are the resources being exchanged. According to this theory, individuals are motivated by their personal wants and goals and are driven by personal desires. Since it is not possible for individuals to attain all of the various things that they want, they must make choices related to both their goals and the means for attaining those goals.

Individuals must anticipate the outcomes of alternative courses of action and calculate which action will be best for them. In the end, rational individuals choose the course of action that is likely to give them the greatest satisfaction.

One key element in rational choice theory is the belief that all action is fundamentally “rational” in character.

This distinguishes it from other forms of theory because it denies the existence of any kinds of action other than the purely rational and calculative. It argues that all social action can be seen as rationally motivated, however much it may appear to be irrational.

Also central to all forms of rational choice theory is the assumption that complex social phenomena can be explained in terms of the individual actions that lead to that phenomena. This is called methodological individualism, which holds that the elementary unit of social life is individual human action. Thus, if we want to explain social change and social institutions, we simply need to show how they arise as the result of individual action and interactions.

Critiques of Rational Choice Theory

Critics have argued that there are several problems with rational choice theory. The first problem with the theory has to do with explaining collective action. That is, if individuals simply base their actions on calculations of personal profit, why would they ever choose to do something that will benefit others more than themselves? Rational choice theory does address behaviors that are selfless, altruistic, or philanthropic.

Related to the first problem just discussed, the second problem with rational choice theory, according to its critics, has to do with social norms.

This theory does not explain why some people seem to accept and follow social norms of behavior that lead them to act in selfless ways or to feel a sense of obligation that overrides their self-interest.

The third argument against rational choice theory is that it is too individualistic. According to critics of individualistic theories, they fail to explain and take proper account of the existence of larger social structures. That is, there must be social structures that cannot be reduced to the actions of individuals and therefore have to be explained in different terms.

Search This Blog

EMMANUELCLIQ