A Review Of Three Major Sociological Theories And An .

4m ago
523.43 KB
19 Pages

International Journal of Islamic ThoughtVol. 10: (Dec.) 2016ISSN 2232-1314A Review of Three Major Sociological Theories andan Islamic PerspectiveHAYATULLAH LALUDDIN1ABSTRACTThis article examines critically the three major sociological theories namely,Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism and Conflict theory. Thesetheories are formulated on the pattern of science where scientific method isstrictly adhered to. Considering the nature and the essence of the socialphenomenon and its component parts the author argues that the applicationof pure scientific method in the study or analysis of the social phenomenon failto present an accurate understanding of the social phenomenon. Thus, analternative method which is capable of taking into consideration both physicaland metaphysical aspects of the social phenomenon is required. Toward thisend this article attempts to delineate the three major theories of sociology,their shortcoming and loophole, then attempt to highlight the constituentelements of the social phenomenon and their significance in formulation ofcomprehensive sociological theories. An Islamic perspective on sociologicaltheories is also provided in the last part of this article where the discrepancy ofthe sociological theories are disclosed and a proposal for a more dynamicmethod for the formulation of sociological theories of comprehensive natureis made.Keywords: functionalism, interactionism, Islam and social phenomenon, socialconflict, sociological theorySocial theory to a great extent is older than sociology itself. It can be found in the OldTestament, Hindu’s Vedas and Chinese literature. Even social theories of modern socialscience orientation can be traced back 2400 years to ancient Athens. They were used as ameans of visualising the social universe in order to obtain practical knowledge about it.(Caplow 1971: 156). However, modern sociology, as a science of society, emerged only afterthe extension of scientific method into the social world. This happened in early nineteenthcentury when systematic efforts were made to evolve a science of society as a distinctperspective from philosophy, history, politics, economy and other social sciences. (Cotgrove1967:32). However, efforts at establishing a separate identity for the science of societyinvolved formulation of various theories about the nature of social system and the methodsof their study. Sociologists in pursue of this, formulated different theories from which threeare the most popular. Therefore, this paper deals with the three major sociological theoriesnamely, Structure Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism and Conflict Theory.HAYATULLAH LALUDDIN, Ph.D., assistant professor at the Department of Economics, Kulliyyah ofEconomics and Management Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak,53100 KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, email: .10.2016.0028Received: 02 September 2016Accepted: 14 October 2016e-ISSN 2289-6023

A Review of Three Major Sociological TheoriesHayatullah LaluddinStructural FunctionalismCharon (1992) views Structural Functionalism as a sociological theory that depicts societyas a social system consisting of various structures, organizations and institutions,influencing each other and affecting the whole system. It focuses on the function of theinstitutions and their contribution to the continuity of the social system.Although somehistorians trace functionalism to Montestquieu (Cohen 1968:34 ) its roots can be traced toworks of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) an English sociologist, Wilfredo Pareto, (18481923) an Italian sociologist and Emile Durkheim (1855-1917) French sociologist (Joel1991). Furthermore, some insights to functionalism can be drawn from August Comte’s(1798-1857) concept of social static, a study of the coexistence of social phenomenon, basedon the assumption of the interrelatedness of institutions, belief and morals of the society. Heproposed this as one part of sociological inquiry in which the existence of each item in thewhole is explained by the law that prescribe its manner of coexistence with other (Cohen1968).Herbert Spencer suggested a structural analysis of society by drawing functionalanalogy between society and an organism. According to him, society like organism displaysdifferent levels of structural complexity, which can be measured in terms of differentcomponent elements of its structures. Thus, a structure composed of identical elementswould more or less be self-sufficient. But composition of the structure from unlike elementsneeds a greater degree of interdependence. Therefore, the degree of the integration of thewhole depends on the extent of the difference that exists between the individual structuralelements. In other words, the existence of more difference between the structural elementsbrings about greater integration in the whole and enables it to survive by reducing itsinternal disharmony. Thus, Spencer contributed something new to functionalism byanalysing the different levels of complexity of society in terms of structural component andtheir contribution to functioning of the whole.Structural Functionalism, as Percy observed,is more indebted to Emile Durkheim than Spencer. Even though, like Spencer, he wasinfluenced by biological thinking in his early stage of writings, yet he was able to identifysome of the loopholes in its explanation (Cohen 1968: 35-36). By doing so he made thetheory more attractive and useful to social anthropologists as well as sociologists in general.Durkheim analysed division of labour, in terms of its cause and function hence,holding integration or reintegration of society as its function and moral density as its cause.He attributed the breakdown of the constraints built into simple society to pressure causedby growth of population and the broad scope of interaction. This led to an intensifiedcompetition which if left uncontrolled could destroy the society. To control this, Durkheim,suggested division of labour as a potential means of creating interdependency between theindividual members of society supported further by acceptance of morality of mutualobligation (Durkhiem1984: 35). Thus, Durkhiem’s analysis of division of labour, in terms ofmoral density as its cause and integration or reintegration of society as its function bycreating interdependency between its individual members, is an important step in thedirection of functional analysis of social phenomenon, hence, significant source ofderivation of the theory of Structure Functionalism.Durkheim also rejected explanation of religion in terms of intellectual and emotionalcharacteristics of individuals. He viewed religion as a social phenomenon explainable interms of the collective need of individuals by which solidarity and an awareness of thesocial derivation of the moral order of society is expressed. He viewed society as an externalhttps://doi.org/10.24035/ijit.10.2016.0029

e-ISSN 2289-6023International Journal of Islamic ThoughtVol. 10: (Dec.) 2016ISSN 2232-1314force constraining individuals by providing them with necessary moral rules and norms andcultural resources in the light of which they can lead their life (Durkhiem 1984: 37). EmileDurkheim analysis of religion as a moral order derived from society with the symbolicfunction of expressing solidarity among its members and their awareness of its socialderivation, can be considered another important step towards formulation of StructureFunctionalism as a sociological theory.Basically, Structural Functionalism views society as a social order and attempts tofind how it is achieved and perpetuate in society. It also focuses on how different parts ofsocial system by performing their specific function, contribute to the whole structure. Inthis sense, it presents an optimistic picture of society where every component of the socialstructure is perceived to be contributing to the functioning of the whole. For example,family as a subpart of the whole structure socializes children and control sex, religionenhances integration in society by bringing its individual members together. Schoolseducate people and train them for different positions in the society, while police controlpeople by preventing them from threatening social order. These all are positive functionsperformed by different parts of the social system hence, contributing to maintaining orderin the whole. Thus, the survival of the society as a complex working whole depends on itsparts whose overall contribution lead to its functioning.Besides, viewing society as social order, it also sees society as a consensus amongthe individuals on a body of rules and law, which are based on custom, moral and values ofthe society and reinforces the work of its interdependent parts. In this manner itcontributes to the continuation of the social system. However, consensus is not a givenphenomenon in society. For, it is achieved through the process of socialization whereindividuals came to agree to the rules and law of a society. Other institutions such asreligion, schools, police and press etcetera also support socialization further by encouragingindividuals to be part of this consensus. Thus, society through socializing its membersinstils a strong sense of commitment to its rules and law and form consensus among them.By doing so the society is able to exert influence on individuals and secures its owncontinuation (Charon 1992:140-44).Its Formation as a Sociological TheoryAlthough the roots of Structural Functionalism can be traced to the works of writersmentioned above, its emergence as a full-fledged sociological theory of modern implication,can be attributed to Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) and A. R. Radcliffe Brown (18811955) and others. Malinowski after carrying out ethnographic research amongst theAustralian aborigines found that it was not guiding his research, for they were more in thenature of elaboration of assumptions that he worked out during his research. This led himto the first formulation of functionalism, which he considered useful in the understandingof any particular cultural item. The basic ideas that led to formulation of functionalism werebased on the assumptions that there is a general principle to human conduct by which it canbe explained, and that each cultural items has some other contextual elements for itsoccurrence. Thus, in understanding of a particular cultural item of a society, it is necessaryto refer to these general principles of human conduct and contextual items of its occurrence(Malinowski 1962: 132-33). For example, in Trobriand tribe male makes payment to hissister’s husband. In explaining this practice, one refers first to certain general principles ofhttps://doi.org/10.24035/ijit.10.2016.00210

A Review of Three Major Sociological TheoriesHayatullah Laluddinreciprocity, which govern conduct in all societies and secondly, to the fact that it is amatrilineal society where man is succeeded by his sister’s son.Obviously, this kind of analysis explains Trobrianders practice of payment to sister’shusband in terms of present structure of the society namely, matrilineal system wherelineage follow female side, and not in terms of its being evolved from patriarchal system ofthe past, an assumption of speculative nature. It also does not agree with interpretation ofthis practice as an evidence of patriarchal survivals. Thus, in this example the particularitem of Trobriand tribe is explained in terms of the general principle of reciprocity and thefunction of matrilineal structure of the tribe in the present. This is an approach to the studyof social phenomenon that lay at the very essence of the Theory of Structural Functionalism.Subsequently, Malinowski formulated a theory of functional analysis based on somebiological and psychological presumptions. He assumed that humanshave some primaryneeds such as, food, shelter, sexual satisfaction, protection and so on. To meet these needs,they devised techniques for growing or finding and distributing food, construction ofdwelling and the establishment of heterosexual relation. Beside primary needs there existsecondary needs such as need for communication and language. The need for control ofconflict and enhancement of cooperation give rise to social norms and social sanctions.Man’s awareness of danger of life led to some forms of rituals and religion to alleviate theanxieties caused by uncertainty. The satisfaction of secondary needs necessitatedformulation of elaborate coordinative institutions followed by the need for rules ofsuccession and some mechanism of legitimating authority(Malinowski 1962: 132-33).Fromhis analysis of primary and secondary needs in the context of the means of their realization,it became clear that every cultural item of the social life has a function of fulfilling somepresent needs, an affirmation that led to the establishment of Structure Functionalism as asociological theory.Percy identified Radcliffe Brown as another sociologist who takes some importantsteps in the direction of establishing Structure Functionalism as a sociological theory.Although he was not willing to be called a functionalist, he formulated a theory similar tothat of Malinowski. Like Durkheim, he favoured explaining cultural and social phenomena insocial terms in the present. He based his explanation of social phenomenon on four basicassumptions.:1. Society‘s survival depends on some minimal level of solidarity among its members.2. There exists at least minimal level of consistency in relation between the parts ofsocial system.3. Society consists of some basic structures and practices that are related to eachother. This relationship can be shown in a way that contributes to their maintenanceas a whole.4. Social structure and its requirements cannot be reduced. This indicates his tendencyof explaining other things such as ideas, and ritual practices in terms of socialstructures(Cohen1968: 38