2

ABSTRACT

When studying in the field of Sociology everyone is going to approach topics in a different

manner. No two people are going to have the exact same view on a particular subject. There

are however, three major categories in which people might choose to approach topics. The

approaches are known as sociological perspectives and are the functionalist, conflict, and

interactionist perspectives. These perspectives name different ways in which different people

choose to analyze a subject, and how they look at a society as a whole. The following

paragraphs compare and contrast the three, and identify major characteristics of each.

The project assessment on conflict perspective, a critical analysis is comprehensive study of

one of most important sociological perspective, Conflict Perspective, which is one of the most

important perspectives which gave birth to theory like class conflict. How the Marxist ruled

with his theory on class conflict in the sphere of sociology. Here we will deal with different

theorist of class conflict theorists, mode of conflict, its notion, and at end it will be concluded

with critically analyzing it.

3

Acknowledgement

On the successful accomplishment of this project, we would like to take the opportunity to

convey our gratitude to God, and our parents who has given us enough strength and blessing

to work hard and make it to the best of our ability.

We would like to thank our Sociology mentor Ms. Jasleen Kewlani, who despite of all her

pre-occupations provided us all the assistance and guidance we needed for the

accomplishment of this project.

We would like to convey our gratitude to the friends, who have rendered us their valuable

times and without whose help this project would not have been in its present form and shape.

Last but not the least we would like to thank the library staff of the RGNUL.

4

CONTENT

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………05

1.2 Basic Conflicts

1.3 Modes of conflict

1.4 Assumptions

2. Theory on Conflict Perspective……………………………………………….08

2.2 Hobbesian State of Nature

2.3 Theory of Social Conflict- Lewis A.Coser

2.4 Integration Model of Class Conflict – Ralf Dahrendorf

2.5 Hegemony Theory- Antonio Gramsci

3. Analysis of Theories of Conflict………………………………….16

4. An analysis of Sociological Perspectives………………………...19

5. Conflict Perspective over other Perspective……………………..21

6. Reference endnotes………………………………………………..22

5

1. Introduction

Conflict theories are perspectives in social science which emphasize the social, political or

material inequality of a social group, which critique the broad socio-political system, or

which otherwise detract from structural functionalism and political conservativism. Conflict

theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast

traditional or historically dominant ideologiesi. Conflict theory is most commonly associated

with Marxism, but as a reaction to functionalism and positivist methods may also be

associated with critical theory, feminist theory, queer theory, postmodern theory, post-

structural theory, postcolonial theory, and a variety of other perspectives. In order to study

anything one must begin by making assumptions about the nature of what is studied. The

ancient Greek, for example, believed that the universe was run according to the whims of the

Godii. In the contrast, scientist assumes that the universe is orderly and operates in certain

regular ways which may be able to discover. Thus, Newton developed the laws of gravity

after observing that apples always fall downiii. A working set of assumptions is called a

perspective, an approach or sometimes a paradigm. In Sociology several perspective are used

and each one views society from s different aspect. Some of the major perspective in

Sociology is discussed below.

1.2 Basic Conflicts

In conflict theory there are a few basic conflicts. One of the basic conflicts in conflict theory

is that of class. There are low and high ranks in class, and that gives a certain group more

power over another group which causes conflicts. For the most part, when an individual is

part of a high ranked class they usually own a lot of property. That means that if you are of a

lower class, then you don't own as much property. This usually causes conflict on who owns

the most property and what property one does own. In Marx's original conception, ownership

of property was the most essential determinant of the class structure. On the other hand

Weber thought that property ownership was only one factor determining class structure. Also,

in the words of Jorgen Habermas, the conflicts of different social structures and classes

provide the many motives it takes to create and preserve many patterns of culture. Another

basic conflict in conflict theory is that of race and ethnicity. Much like in the class system,

groups in this system are ranked by their prestige and power. This means that if a certain race

or ethnicity has more education, prestige, and power then it is considered the better race or

ethnicity which creates conflict. Another kind of conflict is that of gender. This type of

6

conflict can be noticeable by the implication of a type of culture that is for men and a type of

culture that is for women. Regions are another kind of conflict. This type of conflict is

brought about by all of the different assumptions that people from one region have about

people that are from another region. The regions could range from one country to another or

one state/province to another. Lastly, there is the conflict of religioniv. The conflict of religion

is itself quite stratified; even though there is a group of people belonging to each religion they

are divided much like the social structure of classes. All of these groups seek to gain power

and use it to reshape society the way they see it best. It seems that this is the determining

factor in the ruling class. One of the perennial problem that sociology faces relates to the

perspectives it should have regarding the unit of study. And this issue is closely linked with

the manner in which one conceptualises society itselfv. Given the initial propensity of

Sociology to analyze societies in tote it was but natural to consider society as unity. This

perspective is often referred to as sociological realismvi. Those who perceive society as a

multiplicity, the sociological nominalists, argue that society is mere abstraction.

1.3 Modes of conflict

In conflict theory there are different modes of conflict. One mode of conflict theory is that of

warfare and revolution. Warfare and revolutions take place phases due to the rocky

“collations among a variety of social classes.” An example of warfare is that going on

currently in Burma, where there is military versus population fighting for control over the

country’s government. Another mode of conflict in conflict theory is that of strikes. Modern

society has created a main social divider between workers and managers. When workers feel

they have been treated unfairly, they go on strike to regain their right to power. Another mode

of conflict in conflict theory is that of dominationvii. Different social classes tend to form

different ideologies based around promotion of their own class' welfare. Different groups will

struggle in conflict over what they think is right, what the norms are, and their ideologies.

Higher classes have more abstract ideologies, while subordinated classes ideas reflect the

want in their own lives. The ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas, where the ruling

material force is the ruling intellectual force.

7

1.4 Assumptions

The following are four primary assumptions of modern conflict theoryviii:

1. Competition. Competition over scarce resources (money, leisure, sexual partners, and so

on) is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition rather than consensus is

characteristic of human relationships in all societies to which this theory is applicable

(Marxian materialists assert that there is no competitive human nature; rather, humans are

influenced by their surroundings resulting in a competitive propensity).

2. Structural inequality. Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures.

Individuals and groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained.

3. Revolution. Change occurs as a result of conflict between competing social classes rather

than through adaptation. Change is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

4. War. Even war is a unifier of the societies involved, as well as possibly ending whole

societies. In modern society, a source of conflict is power: politicians are competing to enter

into a system; they act in their self interest, not for the welfare of people.

8

2. Theory on Conflict Perspective

Conflict theory has shown more interest in the clash of interests than in the consensus of

values, the former having the status of a postulate in an ideal-typical formulation. The

conflict of interest is of overriding importance even if it conceded ix. On the other hand, an all

encompassing value-consensus turns out to be an illusion perpetuated by ideologies that

paper over real differences among individuals and groupsx. For conflict theory, what is of

theoretical concern is not a symbolic system shared by ego and alters that enable them to

cooperate, but rather that they seek mutually exclusive goals. Conflicts over ends and

contradictions among values dominate their relationship.

2.2. Hobbesian State of Nature

The causes of conflict are to be found in the nature of man. Impressed by the science of

Galileo, Hobbes fashioned a mechanical model of man as matter of motion. What is heart but

a spring, the nerves but strings, and the joints but wheels giving motion to the body? In

analogizing the human being to an engine, he imported mechanistic materialism into social

sciencexi. Hobbes translated scientific materialism into the human level as a rather crude

stimulus-response psychology. An object stimulus a motion internal to the organism, which is

subjectively experienced as a passion. If a passion becomes an appetite or a desire, the human

machine moves towards the object; if an aversion, the machine moves away from it. Hobbes

identified satisfaction of desire as happiness. And if two men desire same thing and both

can’t get it together, then they’ll become enemy. Hobbes stated competition for scarcity as a

mode of conflict. Morally justified competition leads to war. Hobbes saw no moral restraints

against the use any means to get the ends. The war results aggravated by fear, and in state of

fear, in order to protect himself man will acquire the power which is again another mode to

start the conflict. Beside these another factor which he dealt was glorying which makes

contribution to war. Everybody thinks of himself and if is able to destroy the other then it will

rage the state of conflict. Fear and unhappiness are the incentive you’ll get for the escape to

state of nature.

9

2.3 Theory of Social Conflict- Lewis A.Coser

Conflict within a group, we have seen, may help to establish unity or to re-establish unity and

cohesion where it has been threatened by hostile and antagonistic feelings among the

members. Yet, we noted that not every type of conflict can sub verse such functions for all

groups: Whether social conflict is beneficial to internal adaptation or not depends on the type

of issues over which it is fought as well as on the type of social structure within which it

occurs. However, types of conflict and types of social structure are not independent

variablesxii.

Internal social conflicts which concern goals, values or interests that do not contradict the

basic assumptions upon which concern goals, values or interest that do not contradict the

basic assumptions upon which the relationship is founded tend to be positively functional for

the social structure. Such conflicts tend to make possible the readjustment of norms and

power relations within groups in accordance with the felt needs of its individual members or

subgroups. Internal conflicts in which the contending parties no longer share the basic values

upon which the legitimacy of the social system rests threaten to disrupt the structure.

One safeguard against conflict disrupting the consensual basis of the relationship however is

contained in the social structure itself: it is provided by the institutionalization and tolerance

of conflict. Whether internal conflict promises to be means of equilibration of social relations

or readjustment of rival claims, or whether it threatens to “tear apart,” depends to a large

extent on the social structure within which it occurs.

In every type of social structure there are occasions for conflict, since individuals and

subgroups are likely to make from time to time rival claims to scarce resources, prestige or

power positions. But social structure differs in the way in which they allow expression to

antagonistic claims. Some show more tolerance of conflict than others.

Closely knit groups in which there exists a frequency of interaction and high personality

involvement of the members have a tendency to suppress conflictxiii. While they provide

frequent occasions for hostility, the acting out of such feelings is sensed as a danger to such

intimate relationships, and hence there is a tendency to suppress rather than to allow

expression of hostile feelings. In close-knit groups, feelings of hostility tend, therefore, to

accumulate and hence to intensify. If conflicts break out in a group that has consistently tried

to prevent expression of hostile feeling, it will be particularly intense for two reasons: First,

10

because the conflict does not merely aim at resolving the immediate issue which led to its

outbreak; all accumulated grievance which were denied expression previously are apt to

emerge at this occasion. Second, because the total personality involvement of the group

members makes for mobilization of all sentiments in the conduct of the struggle. Hence, the

closer the group, the more intense the conflict. Where members participate with their total

personality and conflicts are suppressed, the conflict, if it breaks out nevertheless, is likely to

threaten the very root of the relationship.

In groups comprising individuals who participate only segmental, conflict is less likely to be

disruptive. Such groups are likely to experience a multiplicity of conflicts. This in itself tends

to constitute a check against the breakdown of consensus: the energies of group members are

mobilized in many directions and hence will not concentrate on one permitted to accumulate

and conflict is allowed to occur wherever a resolution of tension seems to be indicated, such a

conflict is likely to remain focused primarily on the condition which led to its outbreak and

not to revive blocked hostility; in this way, the conflict is limited to “the facts of the case.”

One may venture to say that multiplicity of conflicts stands in inverse relation to their

intensity.

So far we have been dealing with internal social conflicts only. At this point we must turn to

a consideration of external conflicts, for the structure of the group is itself affected by

conflicts with other groups in which it engages or which it prepares for. Groups which are

engaged in continued struggle tend to lay claim on the total personality involvement of their

members so that internal conflict would tend to mobilize all energies and affects all of the

members. Hence such groups are unlikely to tolerate more than limited departures from the

group unity. In such groups there is a tendency to suppress conflict; where it occurs, it leads

the group to break up through splits or through forced withdrawal of dissenters.

Group which are not involved in continued struggle with the outside are less prone to make

claims on total personality involvement of the membership and are more likely to exhibit

flexibility of structure. The multiple internal conflicts which they tolerate may in turn have an

equilibrating and stabilizing impact on the structure.

In flexible social structures, multiple conflicts crisscross each other and thereby prevent basic

cleavages along one axis. The multiple group affiliations of individuals makes them

participate in various group conflicts so that their total personalities are not involved in any

11

single one of them. Thus segmental participation in a multiplicity of conflicts constitutes a

balancing mechanism within the structure.

In loosely structured groups and open societies, conflict, which aims at a resolution of tension

between antagonists, is likely to have stabilizing and integrative functions for the

relationship. By permitting immediate and direct expression of rival claims, such social

systems are able to readjust their structure by eliminating the sources of dissatisfaction. The

multiple conflicts which they experience may serve to eliminate the causes for dissociation

and re-establish unity. These systems avail themselves, through the toleration and

institutionalization of conflict, of an important stabilizing mechanism.

In addition, conflict within a group frequently helps to revitalize existent norms; or it

contributes to the emergence of new norms. In this sense, social conflict is a mechanism for

adjustment of norms adequate to new conditions. A flexible society benefits from conflicts

because such behavior, by helping to create and modify norms, assures its continuance under

changed conditions. Such mechanism for readjustment of norms is hardly available to rigid

systems: by suppressing conflict, the latter smother a useful warning signal, thereby

maximizing the danger of catastrophic breakdown.

Internal conflicts can also serve as a means for ascertaining the relative strength of

antagonistic interest within the structure, and in this way constitute a mechanism for the

maintenance or continual readjustment of the balance of power. Since the outbreak of the

conflict indicates a rejection of a previous accommodation between parties, once the

respective power of the contender has been ascertained through conflict, a new equilibrium

can be established and the relationship can proceed on this new basis. Consequently, a social

structure in which there is room for conflict disposes of an important means for avoiding or

redressing conditions of disequilibrium by modifying the term of power relations.

Conflicts with some produce associations or coalition with others. Conflicts through such

associations or coalitions, by providing a bond between the members, help to reduce social

isolation or to unite individuals and groups otherwise unrelated or antagonistic to each other.

A social structure in which there can exist a multiplicity of conflicts contains a mechanism

for bringing together otherwise isolated, apathetic or mutually hostile parties and for taking

them into the field of public social activities. Moreover, such a structure fosters a multiplicity

of associations and coalitions, whose diverse purposes crisscross each other, we recall,

thereby preventing alliance along one major line of cleavage.

12

Once group and associations have been formed through conflict with other groups, such

conflict may further serve to maintain boundary lines between them and the surrounding

social environment. In this way, social conflict helps to structure the larger social

environment by assigning position to the various sub-groups within the system and by

helping to define the power relations between them.

Not all social systems in which individuals participate segmental allow the free expression of

antagonistic claims. Social systems tolerate or institutionalize conflict to different degrees.

There is no society in which any and every antagonistic claim is allowed immediate

expression. Societies dispose of mechanisms to channel discontent and hostility while

keeping intact the relationship within which antagonism arises. Such mechanism frequently

operate through “safety valve” institutions which provide substitute objects upon which to

displace hostile sentiments as well as means of abreaction of aggressive tendencies.

Safety-valve institutions may serve to maintain both the social structure and the individual’s

security system, but they are incompletely functional for both of them. They prevent

modification of relationship to meet changing conditions and hence the satisfaction they

afford the individual can be only partially or momentarily adjustive. The hypothesis has been

suggested that the need for safety-valve institutions increases with the rigidity of the social

structure, i.e., with the degree to which it disallows direct expression of antagonistic claims.

Safety-valve institutions lead to a displacement of goal in the actor: he needs no longer aim at

reaching a solution of the unsatisfactory situation, but merely at releasing the tension which

arose from it. Where safety-valve institutions provide substitute objects for the displacement

of hostility, the conflict itself is channeled away from the original unsatisfactory relationship

onto one in which the actor’s goal is no longer the attainment of specific results, but the

release of tension.

2.4 Integration Model of Class Conflict – Ralf Dahrendorf

In order to prove the superiority of the coercion over the integration model for explaining

certain problems, Dahrendorf went on to build a theory of class conflict upon that model. His

explanation modified Marx’s ideas in the light of changes that have occurred in industrial

societies since Marx wrote and which he did not foresee. Armed with this model and with

Marx as a foundation, stated that the integration model is inadequate for this problem.

13

The structure in which class conflict occurs is the imperatively coordinated association as

defined by Max Weber, exemplified in the modern state, economic enterprise, church, and

trade union. Consequently, any society composed of this organization is subject to class

conflict. Although conflict assumes many forms, it is class conflict that is the focus of

Dahrendorf’s explanatory attempt.

In accord with the strategy of revising Marx, he adopted a different basis of class. Possession

or exclusion from property is not the foundation of social class. Rather, the basis of class is

the possession or exclusion from authority. As a result, those in positions of authority in these

associations from an upper class, at least potentially. And those who are subject to authority

from a lower class. Whereas Marx believed that power arises from the ownership of property,

Dahrendorf conclude that the control over property stems from the possession of authority.

The trouble with Marx’s theory, said Dahrendorf, is that it is inconsistent with the trend

toward separation of ownership from control in the economy.

According to coercion model, authority in imperatively coordinated associations, even though

legitimate, must ultimately generate conflicts between those who wield it and those subjected

to it. Authority must have this consequence because it is an element of society, and according

to the model all elements in the society are in conflict. Conflict and disintegration, not

authority’s integrative function, reveal society’s ugly side, said Dahrendorf.

Dahrendorf argued that conflicts arise out of this distribution of authority when certain

empirical conditions materialize. He assumed that embedded in the roles of those who hold

authority are interests that contradict interests embedded in the roles of those who obey. The

interest latent within roles of authority is that of maintaining the existing structure, whereas

the interest latent within roles of subjection is that of changing it. It is obvious that these

latent interests correspond fairly closely to what Marx called objective interests. Rather than

resulting from a differential distribution of property, however, they originate in a differential

distribution of authority. Again the continuity of Dahrendorf with Marx is evident, for the

transmutation of a latent to a manifest interest corresponds to the acquisition of class

consciousness.

Individuals who share roles with similar latent interests constitute what Dahrendorf called a

quasi group within the association. Those members of a quasi group who then become

conscious of their latent interests form an interest group, the former being a recruiting field

for the latter. Interest groups are real groups with shared goals and organization; and within

14

the context of Dahrendorf’s theory, they turn out to be social classes that engage in class

conflict.

For an interest group to form, certain empirical factors must materialize. In identifying three

types of such factors, Dahrendorf qualified the theoretical model of coercion with empirical

facts. One factor consists of the social conditions of organization, second factor is technical,

and third factor consists of the political conditions of organization.

Dahrendorf’s assumption that contradictory perspectives toward authority have an existence

in roles apart from the orientations of their incumbents implies a critique of functional theory.

He compared these objective perspectives to parson’s role-expectations, and the assumption

leads directly to the conclusion that the legitimacy of authority is always precarious.

Somehow, to those who are excluded from it, authority is suspect and its functional

contribution not sufficient to sustain it. Dahrendorf thus transposed Marx’s notion of

objective economic interests conditioned by property to the sphere of authority. Yet, at the

same he denied that social organization is possible without domination and subjection. The

result is that organization is continually unstable.

2.5 Hegemony Theory- Antonio Gramsci

Cultural hegemony is the philosophic and sociological concept, originated by the Marxist

philosopher Antonio Gramsci, denoting that a culturally-diverse society can be ruled

(dominated), by one of its social classes. It is the dominance of one social group over another,

i.e. the ruling class over all other classes. The ideas of the ruling class come to be seen as the

norm; they are seen as universal ideologies, perceived to benefit everyone whilst only really

benefiting the ruling classxiv. It reveals one of Gramsci’s central concerns: to explain why

Europe’s working-class failed to spearhead a socialist revolution, and how, in Italy and

elsewhere, it could act against its own class interests by supporting a fascist regime. In

addressing these issues, Gramsci confronted an oft-noted weakness in Marx’s historical

materialism: the role of ideas in preventing or advancing revolutionary change. Asserted that

“the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class,’’ Marx portended that the proletariat, with

its number counting creasing, would come to recognize its class interests and unite to over

throw bourgeoisie and the conditions of alienation and exploitation that serve their narrow

ambitions for profit. To understand this, Gramsci posits a strategic distinction, between a War

of Position and a War of Maneuver. The war of position is intellectual, a culture war in which

the anti-capitalist politicians (communist leaders sponsors, socialist scholars and ideological

15

subversionist) seek to have the dominant voice in the mass media, other mass organizations,

and the schools (and actively do ideological subversion). Once achieved, this position will be

used to increase class consciousness, teach revolutionary theory and analysis, and to inspire

revolutionary organization (demoralization). On winning the intellectual war of position,

communist leaders would then have the necessary political power and popular support to

begin the war of maneuver — the armed insurrection against capitalism.

Although cultural domination was first analyzed in economic class terms, it is broadly

applicable to social class. Gramsci suggested that prevailing cultural norms must not be

perceived as either “natural” and “inevitable”, but, that said cultural norms (institutions,

practices, beliefs) must be investigated for their roots in societal domination and their

implications for societal liberation. Cultural hegemony is neither monolithic nor unified;

rather it is a complex of layered social structures (classes). Each has a “mission” (purpose)

and an internal logic, allowing its members to behave in a particular way that is different

from that of the members of the other social classes, while also coexisting with these other

classes. Because of their different social missions, the classes will be able to coalesce into a

greater whole, a society, with a greater social mission. This greater, societal mission is

different from the specific missions of the individual classes, because it assumes and includes

them to itself, the whole.

In a layered cultural hegemony, personal "common sense" maintains a dual structural role.

Each individual utilizes this "common sense" to cope with their daily life and explain to

themselves the small segment of the social order they come to witness in the course of this

life. However, because it is by nature limited in focus, common sense also inhibits the ability

to perceive the greater, systemic nature of socio-economic exploitation that cultural

hegemony makes possiblexv. People concentrate their attention upon their immediate concerns

and problems, i.e. their lives (systematically troubled, preoccupied, absorbed and lost in the

daily routines), rather than (attentive, intent, focused) upon the fundamental sources of (their)

social and economic oppression, and be focused to solve their particular fundamental

problems. Problems that been put on them by Marxist-Leninist politics created design of a

"social order". The Hegelian-Gramsci hegemonic limited state of focus, where one cannot see

out of the box.

16

3. Analysis of Theories of Conflict

As we proceed to a critically analyze the theories on conflict perspective, should know that

these perspectives are just the road which goes to same goal.

Theory of Social Conflict- Lewis A.Coser

It is one the main theory in the conflict perspective domain which is greatly influence by the

Marxism, in this theory Coser dealt with conflict within the group, here he tried to establish

the fact that conflict within the group is likely to benefit the group as it helps to establish the

unity and cohesion, but he failed how the types of conflict and social structure are dependent

on each other. He put forward that conflict which concern goals , values do not contradict the

basic assumptions on which it is based, but it is not possible in today’s state of nature as all

the conflicts which has goals, value, interest vested in it will end up affecting the very

foundation of any relationship on it is based. This theory I not at all universally applicable as

it says that closely knit group in which there exist a high level of interaction they don’t clash

but as it is known and heard that the most closely knit social structure tend to fall when they

claim to scarce resource and prestige. One more fallibility it shows that if any social group is

closely knit then they will accumulate the high intensity of hatred. Here he shows that loosely

structured group and open societies have less conflict than closely bonded but in reality the

loose structure will fall into each other more often on immediate and direct claims. It says

that if frequent conflict help revitalize the norms and form new norms, but in reality conflict

on concrete claims can bring new norms but daily conflict won’t be able to form new norms

or reassess an existing norm.

Integration Model of Class Conflict – Ralf Dahrendorf

The main fallibility in the theory of integration of class conflict is that he could able to

foresee in future, he went on to oversimplify the revolution of class-conflict theory of Marx

in which he failed. Dahrendorf proclaimed the integration and class conflict is of equal

theoretical utility which was his biggest mistake which took his universality. To demonstrate

his superiority with regard to a specific problem, Dahrendorf examined stratification and its

relation to the state but at the end it was went into conformity with the Durkheim and

Parsons. Overall, this theory of class conflict assumes the inevitability of contradictory

interests with respect scarce value.

17

Emile Durkheim Vs Karl Marx

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were full of evolving social and economic ideas.

These views of the social structure of urban society came about through the development of

ideas taken from the past revolutions. As the Industrial Revolution progressed throughout the

world, so did the gap between the class structures. The development of a capitalist society

was a very favorable goal for the upper class. By using advanced methods of production

introduced by the Industrial Revolution, they were able to earn a substantial surplus by ruling

the middle class. Thus, maintaining their present class of life, while the middle class was

exploited and degraded. At this time in history, social theorists like Emile Durkheim and Karl

Marx challenged the aspect of social structure in their works. Emile Durkheim is known as a

functionalist state that everything serves a function in society and his main concern to

discover what that function was. On the other hand Karl Marx, a conflict theorist, stresses

that society is a complex system characterized by inequality and conflict that generate social

change. Both Durkheim and Marx were concerned with the characteristics of groups and

structures rather than with individuals.

Ultimately, many social thinkers in the history of sociology have challenged the topic of

social structure in their works. Social thinkers like Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx have

spent their entire lives formulating theories that would explain the status of individuals in

societies. From a functionalist perspective sociologist like Emile Durkheim looks at society

as a system with various parts that contribute to the maintenance of the whole. On the other

hand Karl Marx, a conflict theorist, stresses that society is a complex system characterized by

inequality and conflict that generate social change. Both theorists looked at a social system as

a set of mutually supporting elements, unlike for Mark; it was hard for Durkheim to explain

how change might occur in a society.

A good example of functionalist perspective is Emile Durkheim’s theory about religion.

According to Durkheim, religion in not about supernatural beings but rather about beliefs and

practices, which are the collective representations of society and groups? Because

Durkheim’s main interest was the ways in which society is bound together, he investigated

the role and the origin of religion in various communities. He believed that a simpler society

18

has a simpler religion. Durkheim claims that, “a religion as closely connected to a social

system surpassing all others in simplicity may well be regarded as the most elementary

religion we can possibly know”. For instance Durkheim argues that totemic a religious

system in which animal figures are regarded as sacred is among the simplest religious forms

in the world. The totemic animal, Durkheim believed, was the original focus of religious

activity because it was the emblem for a social group, “the clan”. He thought the model for

the reel

19

4. An analysis of Sociological Perspectives

A thorough Analysis, A Compare and Contrast of the Three Sociological Perspectives:

Functionalist, Conflict, and Interactionist. As discussed above these that the approach to

study the sociology is perspective.

"The functionalist perspective is a sociological approach which emphasizes the way that parts

of a society are structure to maintain its stability,"xvi This perspective looks at a society in a

positive manner and sees it as stable, with all the parts working together. Under the

functionalist view every social aspect of a society contributes to the society's survival, and if

not, the aspect is not passed to the next generation.

"The conflict perspective is a sociological approach which assumes that social behavior is

best understood in terms of conflict or tension between different groups". In contrast to the

functionalist view of stability, conflict sociologist sees a society as being in constant struggle.

The idea of conflict is not necessarily violent; it could just refer to disagreements that are

worked out through a mediatorxvii. The two main contributors to the formation of the conflict

perspective are Karl Marx and W. E. B. Du Bois. Karl Marx explained that conflicts between

classes of society are inevitable, since workers will always be exploited as a result of

capitalism. It is through the expansion of Marx's work that sociologist now apply conflict

theory to all aspects of society. Even though there are parallels between Marxist theories and

conflict perspective they are not the same. An important aspect of conflict perspective is that

it encourages sociologists to look at a society through the eyes of those in the population who

does not influence decision makingxviii. Du Bois contributed to the conflict perspective by

studying society in reference to blacks and their struggles within society.

"The interactionist perspective is a sociological approach which generalizes about

fundamental or everyday forms of social interactionxix,” Interactionist perspective focuses on

the way that small groups act, in order to understand society as a whole. Interactionist study

people in their everyday behavior and how they react to their surroundings. Such

surroundings may include material things, actions, other people, and symbols. George

Herbert Mead is most often credited with founding the interactionist perspective, but Charles

Horton Cooley also shared Mead's views. Mead was a professor at the University of Chicago,

and he focused on the analysis of one-to-one situations and other small groups. He paid

20

particular attention to body language such as a frown or nod, and he also asked the questions

of how other group members affected these gesturesxx.

21

5. Conflict perspective over other perspective

Sociological Perspective is, Examining humanity through this perspective, means to look at

the social conflicts between class, age, race, religion, etc. we believe this is the best way,

because everywhere in the world is some kind of conflict. For example, there in the United

States of America, which is supposed to be a free and equal country, there are flights over

color, people working to gain equal rights in the workforce, children striving for better

education. If these problems are so prevalent in the richest and most powerful country, how

can one not view the world using conflict perspectivexxi? Although I agree with these views, I

do not think this is a problem that can be solved by using a system forcing everyone to be

equal. Nevertheless, I do consider this theory to be a good and just one. The fact of the matter

is there is someone who always wants more; there is someone who will always take

advantage. Unless, these ways of controlling the problems of society are done equally, then

there is no hope for this system.

Not only do I feel as though the conflict perspective is the most accurate way of looking at

society, but I believe that the functionalists have one important point. The functionalist’s

view that each individual must contribute to the society’s survivalxxii. Although everyone has

their own role to take on, the society must work together and help one another.

One other perspective I can agree with is the interactionist perspective, because it is

necessary to look at each individual on a more personal level. In doing this, it can help the

Sociologist to see how each person affects the society as a whole. The interationist

perspective allows the Sociologist to take details information by listening to conversations,

seeing how people react with their family, friends, workers, etc �

As a whole I believe that each perspective has essential points that can make essential it to be

followed.

22

Reference Endnotes

i “Conflict a sociological perspective”, social science student weekly,1992, Colombia university, p.32-34ii Ib, p.39iii Internet resource http//www.wikipedia.org/ , retrieved on 10nov2009 at 14:00iv ibidv Oommen,t.k.,venugopal,c.n.,sociology for law students,1993, eastern book co.lucknow,p.12vi ibidvii Theorist in sociological perspective, p.1-4,as retrieved from http//www.highbeam.com/ on10nov2009 at 14:00viii ibidix Rhoads k.,Jhon , critical issues in Social theory, Pennsylvania state university press,p.257x Ib, p.259.xi Haralambos, sociology themes and perspectives,2007,oxford university press, new delhi,pp.3xii Coser,a. Lewis & Rosenberg Bernard, Sociological theory, 5th edition,macmillan publishing co., new York,p181xiii Ib,p.183xiv Appelrouth Scott & edles desfar laura,classical and contemporary sociological theory,1965,pine forge press,p.32xv ibidxvi Platt, J. http://www.vcm.es/info/isa/contr1.htm as retrieved on 12nov2009 at 13:00xvii Schaefer, R. T., & Lamm, R. P., Sociology, New York, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1998,p.112as retrieved from http//www.highbeam.com/ on12nov2009, at 13:00xviii ib p.118xix ibidxx Ib p.120xxi Term paper on conflict perspective, Columbia University,1998,culombia university press,culombia,p.134xxii Ib p.135