There are three theoretical approaches, or sociological paradigms, central to sociology, each stemming from different ways of thinking and viewing sociology. The video in figure 5.3 by Daniel Davis explains these three major frameworks, or sociological lenses (Conflict Theory, Structural Functionalism, and Symbolic Interaction Theory). We’ll talk about each of these frameworks in turn throughout this chapter, and touch on a few others that are significant to the sociological study of gender.

Figure 5.3. Three Foundational Sociological Theories [Youtube]. Standard YouTube license.

5.3.1 Conflict Theory

Conflict Theory is a macro-sociological theory that looks at power dynamics and inequality. The theory’s creation is credited to Karl Marx and Fred Engels through their research in the 19th century on capitalism and class struggle (Marx & Engels, 1848). Conflict Theory attempts to explain the existence of racism, sexism, ageism, socioeconomic inequality, among other social ills. According to the conflict paradigm, societies are heavily influenced by inequality based on social differences between the elite, the “ bourgeoisie”, and other working groups, or the “proletariat”. Conflict theory, then, is particularly interested in inequalities based on the various aspects of master status—race or ethnicity, sex or gender, age, religion, ability or disability, and socioeconomic status (SES). SES includes the combined effects of income, education, and occupation (Hayes, 2022).

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. Looking at the structures of wealth, power, and status and how those structures maintain the social, economic, political, and coercive power of one group at the expense of all other groups is the end goal of Conflict Theory (Wells, 1979).

Rather than seeing institutions as harmless and generally helpful, conflict theorists argue the institutions of any 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 more tools to get ahead, while those in urban schools are not (Kozol, 1991). As a result, the students who go to well-funded schools have pathways into college and well-paying jobs. Students from schools with fewer resources face barriers that make it hard to get ahead.

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

Consider the examples of access to abortion and medical care, or marriage equality. Power is maintained by the powerful when access to these crucial social structures is limited. These issues do not affect those in power, but they do affect historically marginalized groups, in these cases women and LGBTQIA+ populations broadly speaking. . The idea of blocking certain populations from voting is to ensure a dominant few hold power in society. This was seen in blocking women’s rights to voting, it meant men stayed in control. Similarly, creating barriers to voting in areas with large majorities of marginalized populations uses the power dynamic to silence their voices and limit power in politics and voting. These are the social problems and current issues that conflict theory can illustrate the why and frame research through by looking at stratification. As a critique of capitalism, conflict theory highlights the problems with systems of power based on competition for limited resources, and emphasizes the zero-sum nature of power. Zero-sum politics, economics and games are those in which there can only be winners and losers.

While conflict theory was originally developed to describe how class works, the analysis is also applicable to all stratified systems of difference and power, including race, gender, ability, or religion. Conflict theory asks us to determine which groups have power presently and who benefits from existing social arrangements. An example of viewing an issue through the lens of conflict theory could be the protests in Iran over the death of Mahsa Amini and rules against women’s behavior and dress in public that began in 2022 (a detailed summary of these protests can be found here). Who benefits from continued social conflict, and what are the likely outcomes of these protests?

A major critique of conflict theory is its focus on change and neglect of social stability. Some critics of conflict theory acknowledge that societies are constantly changing but point out that much of the change is minor or incremental, not revolutionary (1.3C: The Conflict Perspective, 2018).

5.3.2 The Functionalist Paradigm (Structural Functionalism)

The functionalist paradigm or functionalism describes society as stable and describes all of the various mechanisms that maintain social stability. Functionalism argues that social structure is responsible for all stability and instability and that social structure continuously attempts to maintain social equilibrium (balance) among all of society’s components. Functionalism argues that a stable society is the best possible society, and any element that helps maintain that stability must add to society’s adaptability (functionality). This is a macro-level paradigm that describes large-scale processes and large-scale social systems; it is uninterested in individual behavior. Imagine this perspective as if it was a human body: the different components all have to work together, and if one starts to fail or has troubles, another part will attempt to create balance and support healing.

The functionalist paradigm does a good job of explaining how the institutions of society (the family, education, religion, law/politics/government, the economy, medicine, and media) work together to create social solidarity (a social contract in which society as a whole agrees upon the rules of social behavior and agrees, more or less, to abide by those rules) and to maintain balance in society.

Functionalism, structural functionalism, or the functionalist paradigm describes the societal elements that create social stability for the greatest number of people. This paradigm, like conflict theory, is very interested in the structure of society and how it impacts people’s lives. However, functionalism sees the social structure as creating equilibrium or balance. It also describes the various elements of society that maintain that balance. Functionalism helps us understand that social phenomena and systems exist because they contribute to the stability of the society that they exist within. As an example of macro-sociology

One of its fundamental premises is that society is structured to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Unfortunately, this perspective ignores historically marginalized populations. It cannot explain inequality except to say that it must have a social function—it must make society more adaptable—simply because inequality has always existed. Functionalism describes, analyzes, and is interested in any social element that maintains the status quo—keeps things as they are—and maintains the social balance between and among all of the institutions of society (family, education, religion, law/politics/government, economy, medicine, and media).

A common critique of functionalism is that it ignores social change and the inequality maintained by powerful people. Some believe that the theory overemphasizes behaviors of the dominant society and institutions and devalues actions by individuals. However, a functionalist approach can also facilitate social change by making power visible.

5.3.3 The Symbolic Interactionist Paradigm (Symbolic Interactionism)

Symbolic interactionism describes society as small groups of individuals interacting based on how they interpret various cultural symbols such as spoken, written, and non-verbal language. Our behavior with and among other people (our interaction) results from our shared understanding of cultural symbols. This is a micro-level paradigm that describes small-scale processes and small-scale social systems; it is interested in individual behavior.

An important aspect of symbolic interactionism is not so much its interest in small groups as its research into the interpretation of cultural symbols. To the symbolic interactionist paradigm, everything in society is based on how we interpret our cultural symbols—media images, language, stereotypes, perceptions, and belief systems. Everything is arbitrary, and therefore is a social construct. Meaning, we made it up.

In the United States, for example, we have a long history of creating social stories that lead many of us to ostracize those who do not fit an idealized image of how an American looks, sounds, or acts. We interpret through historical and current media, stories, language, and stereotypes that someone with a darker skin tone must have been born elsewhere. We hear these people are dangerous (murderers, rapists, thieves, and terrorists). These concepts then create stigmas around people who fit into those descriptors.

We can also look at the narratives, images, and beliefs around women. It is often reinforced that women should be quiet and pretty, stay at home and cook, or dress in certain ways, say things, and act in ways that are not offensive or aggressive. If they do not fit these norms, they are shamed and stigmatized. The stigmas surrounding those who do not fit into that tiny box exemplify how one can view the world through symbolic interaction. We take these symbols and norms and apply them to individuals and groups, and they have real-life consequences. Symbolic interactionism explains how various forms of language (including the images and the messages in the media) shape our interactions with one another and reinforce stereotypes.

Symbolic interaction theory is an excellent example of micro-sociology. The theory argues that arbitrary definitions and symbolic meanings deeply influence our behavior. Our interactions with other members of the community are what create those definitions and meanings. Humans react to their perception of how they think their life is going or how they believe others treat them or think about them, creating reality instead of reality being an objective truth.

One critique often cited in symbolic interaction theory is that the theory implies individuals are somewhat rational and a person’s behavior is always in their best interest when we know that’s often not the case.

5.3.4 Three Theoretical Perspectives Compared

This chart in figure 5.4 looks at the three different paradigms and how socialization (how we are taught the rules of society and norms), inequality (the unequal distribution of resources), and family (the function it serves in society) are viewed by each theory.

Figure 5.4 This table compares the three different sociological theories and how they view the functions of the family, inequality, and socialization in relation to society.