UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO

GESSP 01: Society and Culture

2
Facts never interpret themselves. In everyday life, we
interpret what we observe by using common sense,
placing any particular observation or “fact” into a
framework of more-or-less related ideas. Sociologists
place their observations into a conceptual framework
called a theory. A theory is a general statement about
how some parts of the world fit together and how they
work. It is an explanation of how two or more facts are
related to one another. By providing a framework in
which to place observations, each theory interprets
reality in a distinct way. Sociologists use three major
theories that provide understanding of social life.

3
I. Symbolic Interactionism
We can trace the origins of Symbolic Interactionism to the
moral philosophers of the eighteenth century who noted
that:
✓ People evaluate their own conduct by comparing
themselves with others (Strykers 1990).
✓ People use symbols to encapsulate their experiences
(William James, 1842-1910; John Dewey, 1859-1952).
✓ Symbols lie at the basis of self-concept (Charles Horton
Cooley, 1864-1929; William I. Thomas, 1863-1947; George
Herbert Mead, 1863-1931).

4
Symbolic Interactionists stress that symbols –
things to which we attach meaning – make social
life possible. What do we mean by this?
1. Without symbols our social relations would be
limited to the animal level, for we would have no
mechanism for perceiving others in terms of
relationships (aunts and uncles, employers and
teachers, and so on). Strange as it may seem, only
because we have symbols can we have aunts and
uncles, for it is these symbols that define for us
what such relationships entail.
5
2. Without symbols, we also could not coordinate
our actions with others. We would be unable to
make plans for a future date, time, and place.
Unable to specify times, materials, sizes, or goals,
we could not build bridges and highways. Without
symbols, there would be no books, movies, or
musical instruments. We would have no schools or
hospitals, no government, no religion.

6
Symbolic Interactionists point out that even the
self is a symbol, for it consists of the ideas that we
have about who we are. And it is a changing
symbol, for as we interact with others, we
constantly adjust our views of the self based on
how we interpret the reactions of others.

7
In short, Symbolic Interactionists analyze how our
behaviors depend on the ways we define
ourselves and others. For example, if you think of
someone as an aunt or uncle, you behave in
certain ways, but if you think of that person as a
boyfriend or girlfriend, you behave quite
differently. It is as though everyday life is a stage
on which we perform; we switch roles to suitour
changing audiences. Symbolic Interactionists
primarily examine face-to face interaction; they
look at how people work out their relationships
and make sense out of life and their place in it.
8
II. Structural – Functional Analysis
The central idea of Structural-Functional Analysis is that
society is a whole unit made up of interrelated parts that
work together. Structural Functional Analysis also
known as functionalism or structural functionalism, is
rooted in the origins of sociology (Turner 1978). Auguste
Comte and Herbert Spencer viewed society as a kind of
living organism. Just as a biological organism has organs
that function together, they wrote, so does society. Like
an organism, if society is to function smoothly, its various
parts must work together in harmony.

9
Emile Durkheim also saw society as composed of many
parts, each with its own function. When all the parts of
society fulfill their functions, society is in a “normal state.”
If they do not fulfill their functions, society is an
“abnormal” or “pathological state.” To understand
society, then, functionalists say that we need to look at
both structure (how the parts of the society fit together
to make a whole) and function (what each part does, how
it contributes to society).

10
Although Robert Merton dismissed the organic analogy,
he continued the essence of functionalism—the image of
society as a whole composed of interrelated parts.
Merton used the term functions to refer to the beneficial
consequences of people’s actions that help keep a group
(society, social system) in equilibrium. In contrast,
dysfunctions are consequences that undermine a
system’s equilibrium.

11
Functions can be either manifest or latent. If an action is
intended to help some part of the system, it is a manifest
function. For example, suppose that government officials
become concerned about the slowing rate of childbirth.
Congress passes a new law that offers a $10,000 bonus
for every child born to a married couple. The intention, or
manifest function, of the bonus is to increase childbearing.
Merton pointed out that people’s actions also can have
latent functions—unintended consequences that help a
system adjust. Let’s suppose that the bonus works, that
the birth rate jumps. As a result, the sale of diapers and
baby furniture booms. Because the benefits of these
businesses were not the intended consequences, they are
latent functions of the bonus.
12
Of course, human actions also can hurt a system. Because
such consequences usually are unintended, Merton called
them latent dysfunctions. Let’s assume that the
government has failed to specify a “stopping point” with
regard to its bonus system. To collect the bonus, some
people keep on having children. The more children they
have, however, the more they need the next bonus in
order to survive. Large families become common, and
poverty increases. Welfare is reinstated, taxes jump, and
the nation erupts in protest. Because these results were
not intended, and because they harmed the social system,
they represent latent dysfunctions of the bonus program.

13
III. Conflict Theory
Conflict theory provides a third perspective on social life.
Karl Marx,who developed conflict theory, witnessed the
Industrial Revolution that transformed Europe. He saw
that peasants who had left the land to seek work in cities
had to work at wages that barely provided enough to eat.
(The average worker died at age 30, the average wealthy
person at age 50). Shocked by this suffering and
exploitation, Marx began to analyze society and
history.

14
As he did so, he developed Conflict Theory concluding
that:
✓ The key to human history is class struggle.
In every society, some small group controls the means of
production and exploits those who are not in control. The
struggle is between:
Bourgeoisie-the small group of capitalists who own the
means to produce wealth.
Proletariat-the mass of workers who are exploited by the
Bourgeoisie.

15
Another conflict sociologist by the name Ralf Dahrendorf
sees conflict as:
✓ Inherent in all relations that involve authority. He
points out that authority or power that people consider
legitimate, permeates every layer of the society—
whether a small group, a community, or the entire society.
People in positions of authority try to enforce conformity,
which in turn creates resentment and resistance.
✓ The result is a constant struggle throughout society to
determine who has authority over what.

16
IV. Other Perspectives
Post-Modernism
✓ Designates a new condition which contemporary
advanced industrial societies alleged to have reached.
✓ This per s pective a r gu e s t h a t i t o f f e r s r e l a t e d
perspectives on the shortcomings of positivism as well as
new ways to theorize and study contemporary societies.

17
Auguste Comte and Positivism
Social problems attended this social upheaval, and Auguste Comte,
a French philosopher, believed that the methods and techniques of
the natural sciences could be fruitfully applied to the society. This
idea of applying the scientific method to the social world, known as
positivism, apparently was first proposed by Auguste Comte (1987-
1857). With the French Revolution still fresh in his mind, Comte left
the small, conservative town in which he had grown up and moved
to Paris. The changes he experienced, combined with those France
underwent in the revolution, led Comte to become interested in
what holds society together. What creates social order, he
wondered, instead of anarchy and chaos? And then, once society
does become set on a particular course, what causes it to change?
Comte simply asked two questions: “What is? and What should be?”

18
As he considered these questions, Comte concluded that the right way to answer
them was to apply the scientific method to social life. Just as this method
revealed the law of gravity, so, too, would it uncover the laws that underlie
society. Comte called this new science sociology—the “scientific study of society”
(from Greek logos, ‘study of’ and the Latin socius or ‘companion’ or ‘being with
others.’). Comte stressed that this new science not only would discover social
principles but also would apply then to social reform, to making society a better
place to live.
Comte had some ideas that today’s sociologists find humorous. For example, as
Comte saw matters, there were only six sciences—mathematics, chemistry,
biology, astronomy, and sociology—with sociology far superior than others
(Bogardus, 1992). To Comte, applying the scientific method to social life meant
practicing what we might call “armchair philosophy”—drawing conclusions from
informal observations of social life. He did not do what today’s sociologists
would call research, and his conclusions have been abandoned.

19
Nevertheless, Comte’s insistence that we cannot be
dogmatic about social life, but that we must observe and
classify human activities in order to uncover society’s
fundamental laws, is well taken. Because he developed
this idea and coined the term sociology, Comte often is
credited being the founder of sociology.

20
C. Wright Mills and The Sociological Imagination
Sociology offers a new perspective, a view of the world.
The Sociological Imagination opens a window onto
unfamiliar worlds and offers a fresh look at familiar
worlds. In your daily regular routine, you might find
yourself in the midst of other students in school, with
family members at home, or around peer groups. But you
will also find yourself looking at your own world in a
different light. As you view other worlds, or your own, the
sociological imagination enables you to gain a new vision
of social life.

21
Sociological imagination stresses the social contexts in
which people live. It examines how these contexts
influence people’s lives. At the center of the sociological
imagination is the question of how groups influence
people, especially how people are influenced by their
society—a group of people who share a culture and
territory.

22
To find out why people do what they do, sociologists look
at social location—the corners in life that people occupy
because of where they are located in a society.
Sociologists look at jobs, income, education, gender, age,
and race as significant. Consider, for example, how being
identified with a group called males or with a group called
females when we are growing up affects our ideas of
what we should attain in life. Growing up as a male or
female influences not only our aspirations, but also how
we feel about ourselves and how we relate to others in
dating and marriage and at work.

23
Sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) put it this way: “The
sociological imagination enables us to grasp the
connection between history and biography.” By history,
Mills meant that each society is located in a broad stream
of events. Because of this, each society has specific
characteristics—such as its ideas of the proper roles of
men and women. By biography, Mills referred to the
individual’s specific experiences in society. In short,
people don’t do what they do because of inherited
internal mechanisms, such as instincts. Rather, external
influences—our experiences—become part of our
thinking and motivations. The society in which we grow
up, and our particular concerns in that society, then, lie at
the center of our behavior.
24
Consider a newborn baby. If we were to take the baby from its
Filipino parents and place it with a Yanomamo Indian ethnic group
in the jungles of South America, you know that when the child
begins to speak, his or her words will not be Filipino. You also know
that the child will not think like a Filipino. He or she will not grow up
wanting credit cards, for example, or levis jeans, a new car, and the
latest video game. Equally, the child will unquestioningly take his or
her place in Yanomamo society—perhaps as a food gatherer, a
hunter, or a warrior—and he or she will not even know about the
world left behind at birth. And, whether male or female, the child
will grow up assuming that it is natural to want many children, not
debating whether to have one, two, or three children.

25
People around the globe take their particular world for granted.
Something inside us tells us that spaghetti is delicious, and levis
jeans are desirable. Yet something inside some of the Sinai Desert
Arab ethnic groups used to tell them that warm, fresh camel’s
blood makes a fine drink and that everyone should have a large
family and wear flowing robes. And that something certainly isn’t
an instinct. As sociologist Peter Berger (1963) phrased it, that
“something” is “society within us.”Although obvious, this point
frequently eludes us. We often think and talk about people’s
behavior as though it were caused by their sex, their race, and
some other factor transmitted by their genes. The sociological
imagination helps us escape from this cramped personal view by
exposing the broader social context that underlies human behavior.
It helps us see the links between what people do and the social
settings that shape their behavior. It is seeing the “general from the
particular” and seeing the “strange in the familiar.”
26
Weber and Verstehen
Max Weber, one of the proponents of sociology also argued that
another quality of mind must be used in understanding the society
he stressed that one cannot understand human behavior simply by
looking at statistics. Those cold numbers may represent people’s
activities, he said, but they must be interpreted. To understand
people, he said that we should use Verstehen(a German word
meaning “to understand”). Perhaps the best translation of this
term is “to grasp by insight.” By emphasizing verstehen, Weber
meant that the best interpreter of human action is someone “who
has been there,” someone who understands the feelings and
motivations of the people they are studying. In short, we must pay
attention to what are called subjective meanings, the ways in which
people interpret their own behavior. We can’t understand what
people do, Weber insisted, unless we look at how people view and
explain their own behavior.
27
Durkheim and Social Facts
In contrast to Weber’s use of verstehen, or subjective meanings,
Emile Durkheim stressed what he called social facts. By this term he
meant the patterns of behavior that characterize a social group.
Example of social facts in the United States include June being the
most popular month of weddings, suicide rates being higher among
people 65 and older, and more births occurring on Tuesdays than
on any other day of the week.

28
Durkheim said that we must use social facts to interpret social facts.
In other words, each pattern reflects some underlying condition of
society. People all over the country don’t just coincidentally decide
to do similar things, whether that be to get married or to commit
suicide. If that were the case, in some years, middle-aged people
would be most likely to kill themselves, in other years, young
people, and so on. Patterns that hold true year after year, however,
indicate that as thousands and even millions of people make their
individual decisions, they are responding to conditions in their
society. It is the job of the sociologist, then, to uncover the facts
and then to explain them through other social facts.

29