Like we’ve discussed, conflict theory is a major perspective of sociology. You could even argue it’s the most relevant, considering the numerous ideologies which fall under it, but it isn’t the only perspective. If you’ve taken an introductory sociology course or have done a little bit of digging into sociological perspective, you’ve most likely have heard about functionalism or symbolic interactionism. Along with conflict theory, they can be considered the “big three” of sociological perspectives, and while each perspective is unique, they do share similarities that become more apparent when examining them side by side. .
One notable comparison between conflict theory and functionalism is that they take a macro approach to analyzing social behavior. This means that they examine large-scale social structures, institutions, and processes, focusing on broad societal trends and patterns, rather than individual interactions. Now while conflict theory proposes that society exists in the way it does because of a competition for limited resources, functionalism theorizes society is a complex system where all parts work together to maintain social stability and harmony. As a result we can view every part of society as trying to strive for this state of equilibrium. Its name stems from this idea itself; everything has a function. In a way, functionalism says that everything happens the way it does because it’s needed, and this is why it’s fallen out of favor.
Even though it’s considered one of the first perspectives of sociology, embraced by founders like Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim, it lacks a nuance in understanding the harms of certain social behavior. Take social stratification for an example. A functionalist would say it is necessary for maintaining social order and ensuring that the most qualified individuals fill important roles. This completely ignores the possibility that stratification can be the result of race, gender, or other social factors that research has shown play a role in the stratification process. It’s one example of how functionalism fails to look at society from a holistic perspective, and really illustrates why it’s not considered as much in modern sociology. Its relevance as a perspective comes from its importance in the history of sociology as a field.
Now, in contrast, symbolic interactionism is still commonly discussed in the modern day. It also takes a micro analysis of society, focusing on individual interactions and small-scale social dynamics, such as face-to-face interactions and the development of meaning through symbols. This development is specifically what symbolic interactionism is: the idea that individuals create meaning through shared symbols and communication. We assign meaning to objects and action, and thus it plays an important role in how we interpret interaction. When we call sociological perspective a lens to examine social behavior, symbolic interaction is the clearest form of that. It’s why we know a wave can be a sign of hello or goodbye based on if a person is walking towards or away from us, or how we know what each color signifies on a traffic light. It’s all attributed to meaning, but one that dictates how we go through life.
Regardless of the specificities of each perspective, they’ve each played a part in shaping what sociology is today, Either being a stop on the way to more nuanced theories or at the core of how we view societal interaction. Each perspective brings a new lens to the table, and each is a different paradigms to better understand the social world in their own right.