Structural Consensus and Structural Conflict Theories

morphologic Consensus and Structural Conflict TheoriesCompargon and contrast geomorphological consensus and morphological contrast theories of companionable follow out with interpretivist perspectives that emphasize man being instrumentIn Sociology, iodine of the main concepts that stand influenced companionable surmisal is edifice and affectionate consummation. Functionalism and Marxism fit into the loving organisation receive that emphasises the macro perspective examining parliamentary procedure as a whole and how it shapes human behaviour and ideas, therefore, in effect to visualise human behaviour, the genial structures argon in need of probe (Brym Lie, 2009) . On the an otherwise(prenominal) hand, affable action theories atomic number 18 voluntaristic. They focus on human interactions upon a micro level. It argues that case-by-cases generate free will and are not puppets therefore, the actions and meanings of psyches create and shape the commu nity. This suggests actions are not determined by structure. In this essay, these theories will be addressed in order to pull ahead a better understanding of how they are relevant in like a shots nightclub. It is important to compare and contrast these theories through use of yard and critical thinking as they often contradict individually other but nonetheless create a wider understanding of human influence.In the first half of this essay, structural conflict is illustrated as an assumption that purchase order is becoming more than individualistic, though as a counter consideration failalism uses the idea of social solidarity, which leads to their further analysis showing their agreements and disagreements. A musical modeward debate is provided in the second section of the essay that focuses further on the humanist individualistic come on. However, weber believes two structural and social action should be taken in to consideration in order to understand humans actions efficiently.Functionalism falls into structural consensus theory that came into sociology in the centre of attention of twentieth century, although, some of its ideas were present in the founders of sociology in the ninetieth century. It has been argued that the frame achievement that functionalism has created of society has led to other perspectives re-emerging in response to those ideas (OByrne, 2010). Thus the theory has made much(prenominal)(prenominal) impact on sociological thinking to this day. Functionalists such as Emile Durkheim (1858- 1917) whom is arguably one of the founding fathers of sociology firstly stressed consensus ideal in social structure stating that any human thinking is ancestral rather than invented. This takes place in socialisation process that teaches humans to accommodate to norms and values or in other words- cultural behaviour easily accepted in authorized settings (Jones, 2003). He deemed this term collective brain Durkheim described this a s printings and ideas of a common human being in the same society (Punch et al, 2013).Furthermore, Durkheim explored society as a system and its function inside the society. In order to explain this, use of organic resemblance takes place as a way of describing how each social portion or institutions are interdependent for the societys needs. For instance, if one clay organ stops functioning, then the rest of the body shadownot survive, this can be explained within social institutions too, without the nuclear family the society wouldnt be equal to form social cohesion and solidarity (Jones, 2001). On the other hand, other functionalists such as Talcott Parsons had similar ideas, though for Talcott Parsons one of the central tasks of sociology is to analyse society as a system of functionally interrelated variables (Cohen, 1968, p.45). Although Parsons does links his ideas to Durkheim, that is, in the society the personal beings and their views need to be treated as variables a s stated by Cohen (1968).In contrast to structural consensus theories mentioned above, Marxism is known as a structural conflict theory that has been influenced and introduced by Karl Marx (1818- 1883). Economics was passing influential for him as rise how the working class sell fag power, which determines how we relate to one another (Duffy, 2009). The theory shows the conflict between bourgeoisies and proletarians, strange functionalism, he focused on class conflict and how it can be settled. Though since his death, there have been many interpretations of his thesis, some that stick to structural explanations of capitalism, and others that emphasize human operation as a humanist approach (Fawbert, 2014). Louis Althusser (1918-1990) interpreted Marxs work on a structural capitalistic sense however instead of solely focusing on scotch determinism, he switchnatively concentrated on politics and ideologies. He claims that these levels are objective. This is because he believe s humans are not active agents in social change, as we do not shape our society. For Althusser, to understand why the capitalism hasnt collapsed, the states and its exercise of power need to be examined. He has discover the repressive state instrument, which consists of institutions such as the legal system or the police. In addition to the political apparatus that is- ideological state apparatus that includes media, family, education etc. that shape humans process of thinking. As a result, our structure can be interconnected, just like how certain structures of dominance changed in history (Jones et al., 2011). To summa ski lift, in his view, human agency plays no part in social change but the structures, and the only way of capitalism being taken over is through its internal contradictions.Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), on the other hand was more of a humanist Marxist whom was far-famed for originating the notion of hegemony idea that there are constant ideologies to alter a per sons perspectives on the world. (Salamini, 1974) For Gramsci, like Althusser, culture is relatively autonomous. However, dissimilar Althusser, social change is caused by cultural struggles as much as changes in economic forces. (Fawbert, 2011, pp.3). As this theory focuses on human agency and social action, it can be argued that it shifts towards the micro perspective payable to the ideas mournful away from the structural capitalism. This may suggest that the theory is more applicable to present-day(a) society as human beings have become more complex to understand as a result of constant social change.According to Punch (2013) Marxism and Functionalism have a few affaires in common, they both investigated the society from a macro perspective view instead of how individuals be active structure, and they were also both concerned more or less the society moving towards contemporaneity and the ninetieth century industrialization as healthy as its personal effects on quality of life. This also included the introduction of theories of how modernity came nigh and its components. However, Marxists did focus more on the capitalism rather than the industrial society. Marx super believed in political mutation of the working class that would involve rebellion, although his predictions have been criticised due to Eastern Europe Soviet Union destruction and rise of nationalism. However, it has been argued that in Marxs eyes, these communists movements werent what he was hoping for. Durkheim, however, spurned the politics of revolution but did construct ideas about socialism. He focused greatly on norms and values and social solidarity therefore, a revolution would disturb these socially. Moreover, although Marxism is stated as highly deterministic, it can be argued that he does look at solidarity within social class. For instance, he believes that the proletarian does have to collectively rise up to the Bourgeoisies, sensing the idea of togetherness within the lower class.Though they had different motives, they both however, used analogy to explain the social structure. In this effect Durkheim used organic analogy as explained above, whereas Marx used a building analogy the suitcase and the superstructure. The superstructure involves social institutions such as family and education, which supports class interests along with maintaining and legitimating the base through ideologies and culture. Economic base alternatively shapes the superstructure as it consists of means and relations of production that is owned by the bourgeoisies. This suggests that Marxists believed there are only two classes in which it is very difficult to move from one to another. Whereas functionalists disagreed with this and instead believed in meritocracy, the idea that if you work hard bounteous you can achieve through merit, essentially, gain success of what you deserve. This implies that if you put in enough effort, you can move from lower to upper class (C ollins, 2000). Moreover, both theories have been criticised for ignoring individual differences and their motives. This is because they strongly believe that the society shapes the individual instead of individuals meanings and actions influencing the society, therefore the theories arent as applicable in contemporary society as it needs to examine humans meanings to the world. like a shot we turn away from looking at macro perspectives to micro and their differences and similarities within. The ideas of interpritvist view of action and structure are displayed as contrary. Unlike structural theories, social action discusses the interactions between individuals in small groups and their motives in result of this it is called social pragmatist theory. Human beings arent seen a puppets whereas the structure debate talks about individuals as predictable human beings. This then raises question on how the structure influence persons actions and, in opposition, how does ones actions alter the social structure (Morselli, 2014).There is a disagreement amongst the theories within social action when the discussion of the connection between society and action comes in. This is because theories such as ethnomethodology disagree with the concepts of wider structures but sees us as rational human beings and how we make sense of our everyday world (Bilton et al., 2002). While others such as G.H. Mead (1863-1931) who is symbolic interactionist stresses the socialisation as much as structural theories, in spite of this, he underlines the idea of reacting self and the behaviour expected. Mead has a base of three premises that tries to explain human agency. The first is that depending on what the thing is, humans will act certainly towards it, such as institutions, for instance, an individual would act differently in a school environment compared to a governmental institution. The second premise enhances the meaning of these things that it derived from- in most cases social inter action. Interpretive process then takes places in order to administer and alter such things (Blumer, 1986). Hence, Bilton (2002) suggests that although they are all micro theorist they interpret the terms of action and meaning inversely. Following on Meads work, these 3 premises challenged other sociological thinking, especially functionalism, to the view that solely the society determined human action and thinking. Evidence to back his theory was shown in Erving Goffmans (1992-1982) work of whom was vastly influenced by Meads ideas of symbolic interactionism. His study tried to examine how social identity was specify by adaptation of certain roles, in this case, the mental asylum tried to reduce each inmates individuality through uniforms, haircuts, use of number instead of names, leading to each one of them changing his or her identity and self-image for the institutions interests (Calvert, 1992).Finally, Max weber (1864-1920) took on an approach that combines social structure a s well as agency theory emphasising motivational action. This differed to previous theories as functionalism greatly focused on institutions maintaining cohesion of wider structures, whereas Marxs ideas were concerned on social class conflict as well as the origins of industrial capitalism. Though Weber rejected Marxs view of economic determinism, he didnt come crosswise as falsifying them he argued that Marx provided an unpolished portrayal of human motivation, therefore, omit of causal analysis of historical circumstances (Hughes et al., 1995). He also rejected the idea of universalism- that all societies go through same stages, due to empty infinity of complexity affecting each society differently (Chernilo, 2013). He therefore, tries to look at motivated social action as well as discuss large structures, such as cultural ideas. Webers vision was that we have moved away from traditional action to rational or in other words, goal-orientated. Individuals in our contemporary socie ty start to think in a way to gain the benefits of the lowest goal and outweigh its consequences. companionable structure becomes the outcome of this as our life style is the product of our motives.As a consequence, Weber argued that modern capitalist societies are in a triumph of rationality. To explain this he used piety, specifically puritan protestant movement, which criticised the catholic way of thinking. An example of this is his book The Protestant value-system and the spirit of capitalism (1997). He found that Calvinism created the work value orientation and asceticism that contributed to the rise of industrial capitalism this maintained capitalism due to this religion accumulating constant wealth as a result of belief of predestination. The book moreover, states that the human actions can create consequences of rational thinking on a structural basis. Due to such disenchanted world, all intolerance and values become pushed out cultural thinking. This is a crisis for Weber as then this leads to no meaning to the world in the way that religion has created previously (Jones et al., 2011)To summarise, the human agency has been evaluated variably depending on the theories. Durkheim mainly focuses on social solidarity influencing the decision making, although Marx agrees that society is responsible for shaping ones opinion hes more economical determinant. To balance this out, Weber brings in humans motives and how these drives decision making upon an individual, as well as taking structural causes into consideration. Therefore, it can be argued that these sociology fathers have defined human agency but due their differences it is difficult to fully understand the affect the society has on human agency.ReferencesBilton, T., Bonnet, K., Jones, P., Lawson, T., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M., Webster, A. (2002) Introductory Sociology, 4th edn., Houndmills Palgrave Macmillian.Blumer, H. (1992) symbolic Interactionism Perspective and Method, California Univ ersity of California Press.Brym, R. Lie, J. (2009) Sociology Your Compass for a New World, abbreviated Edition Enhanced Edition 2edn., Belmont Wadsworth Publishing Co IncCalvert, SP. (1992) Sociology Today, Hertfordshire Harvester Wheatsheaf.Chernilo, D. (2013) The internal Law Foundations of new-fashioned Social Theory A Quest for Universalism, Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Cohen, P. (1968) Modern Social Theory, London Heinemann Education Books Ltd.Collins (2000) Internet-linked dictionary of Sociology, Glasgow HarperCollins.Duffy, F. (2009) Marx, Social commute and Revolution, Research Starters Sociology Online Research Starters, EBSCOhost (Accessed 17 November 2014).Fawbert, J. (2014) Lecture 6 Structural and cultural Marxism Althusser, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, pinch society, Online Available at https//breo.beds.ac.uk (Accessed 22 November 2014).Hughes, A.J., Martin, J.P., Sharrock, W.W. Understanding Classical Sociology Marx, Weber, Durkheim, London SAGE.Jo nes, P. (2003) Introducing Social theory, Cambridge canon Press.Jones, P., Bradbury, L., Boutillier, S., (2011) Introducing Social Theory 2edn., Cambridge Polity Press.Jones, S. (2001) Durkheim Reconsidered, Cambridge Polity Press.Morselli, A. (2014) Contemporary Capitalism between Human Action and Social Structure, Economics Sociology, 7 (2) pp. 11-19 EBSCOhost Online Available at http//0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.brum.beds.ac.uk (Accessed 17 November 2014).OByrne, D. (2010) Introducing sociological Theory , Dawsonera Online Available at https//www.dawsonera.com (Accessed 15 November 2014).Punch, S., Marsh, I., Keating, M., Harden, J. (2013) Sociology, Making sense of Society, fifth edn., Edinburgh Pearson.Salamini, L (1974) Gramsci and Marxist Sociology of Knowledge an Analysis of HegemonyIdeologyKnowledge, Sociological Quarterly, 15 (3) pp. 359-380 Wiley Online Library Online Available at http//onlinelibrary.wiley.com (Accessed 05 December 2014).Weber, M (1905)The Protestant ethic an d the spirit of capitalism,London Routledge.1