During the mid-twentieth century in the United States, three dominant theoretical frameworks emerged: structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. You are likely to encounter these theories in your introductory sociology courses. As you will see, these frameworks draw on different combinations of the work of the classical theorists while attempting to explain social phenomena. Similar to the classical theorists, mid to late 20th century American sociologists seldom questioned whose voices they included and whose voices they excluded.

2.5.1 Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism was the dominant theoretical framework in American sociology from the 1940s into the 1960s and ’70s. From the classical theorists you read about in the previous section, functionalist theorists drew from Durkheim’s work and a rather narrow interpretation of Weber’s. Structural functionalism tends to focus on macro level phenomena, such as the relationship between institutions.

Functionalists proposed that society is a stable system made up of interrelated parts. Those parts constitute the different institutions within the society, such as the education system, families, and the economy. Each of those parts has a function which contributes to the stability of the whole system. They solve a particular problem for the society. For example, families and schools help socialize and educate young people. The economy helps solve the problem of distributing and producing goods.

Within this framework, social integration is important because that is how people come to feel connected within their society. As an example of social integration, think back to Durkheim’s discussion of the different types of solidarity. In modern societies, common rituals and shared values help people feel connected to each other. Based on this framework it may seem that societies are relatively stable and lack conflict. However, conflict can emerge when different institutions tell us to do different things. This can result in social strain and deviance, which we will explore in more depth in Chapter 7.

A figurehead of functionalism, Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) was concerned with the problem of order. He tended to think through problems and issues in an abstract and at times an unclear way. Robert Merton (1910–2003), a student of Parsons and the functionalist tradition, broadened the concerns of functionalism by developing a unique blend of his teacher’s abstraction and data. He argued for theories that integrated abstract theorizing and empirical research. He saw exemplars of this in Durkheim’s theory of suicide and Weber’s arguments about the Protestant Ethic (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2022).

Structural functionalism has been heavily criticized within sociology. Some critics argue that functionalists present a rather static view of society that fails to account for social change. Others argue there are logical flaws within the framework. Specifically, critics argue there is a problem in assuming that everything that persists in society has a function for that society. For example, does poverty or discrimination really provide a function for society? Functionalism also has a hard time explaining inequality and at its worst may help justify existing inequalities.

2.5.2 Conflict Theory

Conflict theory is another macro level theory. It arose in the United States in the 1960s and ’70s against the backdrop of the rise of various social movements in the United States. It draws more from Marx and to some extent Weber and in doing so challenged functionalism.

In this framework, conflict is a basic fact of social life. Groups with antagonistic interests are constantly struggling with each other. In the classical Marxist formulation it is the owners versus the workers. Beyond class it could include men versus women, white people versus people of color and so on.

Rather than seeing institutions as benign, conflict theorists argue the institutions of a society promote the interests of the powerful, while subverting the interests of the powerless. For example, consider how school funding is distributed. Schools in urban areas receive less financial support compared to their suburban counterparts. Those in suburban schools are given tools to get ahead, while those in urban schools are not (Kozol 1991). As a result the students that go to well funded schools have pathways into college and well paying jobs. For the students that attend schools with fewer resources they face barriers that can make it hard to get ahead.

Instead of viewing common rituals and shared values as integrating people into the society, conflict theorists argue these values and rituals are actually ideologies that deceive people and make people comfortable with their position in society. One dominant ideology within the United States that is heavily criticized by conflict theorists is the idea of the “American Dream,” where you work hard and get ahead. Conflict theorists argue that the opportunities to get ahead for most people are severely curtailed due to artificial barriers in most institutions. The American Dream ideology, according to conflict theorists, justifies the position of those already at the top of the power structure (Colomy 2010).

In terms of social change, it is seen as emerging from people organizing and mobilizing together to pressure the institutions of the society. Change is not something that will emerge from within the institutions. As an example you can take the recent social movements related to environmental justice.

Some well known conflict theorists include C. Wright Mills (1916–1962), Ralf Dahrendorf (1929–2009), and Randall Collins (1941–).

Critics of conflict theory argue that it overemphasizes social change. It is also seen as centering social class in the analysis of the social world, rather than other sources of oppression and privilege, such as race and gender. We will revisit this perspective in Chapter 8.

2.5.3 Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism grew out of the Chicago School of sociology. Unlike functionalism and conflict theory, symbolic interactionism provides a micro level theory to understand society.

The most famous statement on symbolic interactionism was made by Herbert Blumer (who coined the term symbolic interactionism in 1937). Blumer was a student of several sociologists at the Chicago School.

Blumer (1969:2) stated that symbolic interactionism was based on the following premises:

• “Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things.”
• “The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society.”
• “These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters.”

In other words, interactionists are concerned with how meanings are constructed through interactions with others. We attach meanings to situations, roles, relationships, and things whenever we encounter them. For a symbolic interaction to occur, these meanings have to be shared and agreed upon by the people you are interacting with.

For example, if we attach the meaning of “family member” to someone, we will treat them as a family member (or act on the basis of the meaning of family member) as we go about interacting with them. What we define as family originates from interactions with others, such as parents, siblings, teachers, the media and elsewhere. As we go about interacting with other people we may come to modify our interpretations of what it means to be family, especially if the people we are interacting with have more inclusive or exclusive definitions of family.

Erving Goffman (1922–1982), Howard Becker (1928–), Sheldon Stryker (1924–2016), Patricia (1952–) and Peter Adler (1952–-), and Gary Alan Fine (1950–) are some well known interactionists.

Critics argue that symbolic interactionism has a hard time explaining macro level phenomena. Other critics argue that it tends to downplay power, privilege, and oppression. Some present day interactionists have tried to correct these problems by showing how symbolic interactionism can be used to explain power (Athens 2010) and organizational patterns (Hallett and Ventresca 2006). Within sociology a separate professional association, the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (SSSI), continues to debate symbolic interactionism. We will explore this framework more in Chapter 4.