Industrialization brought the need for a new skilled class of laborers, putting new demands on an education system that had served only the elite. Families now depended on work and wages in the industrial sector to stay alive.
These changes stimulated other social scientists to study society and its problems. The writings of Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Harriet Martineau, Max Weber, W. E. B. Du Bois, and many other early sociologists set the stage for the development of sociological theories. Du Bois, an African American who had to deal with racism within and without academia, was the first scholar in North America to have a truly scientific program for the study of society, beginning prior to 1900 (A. Morris 2015). Accompanying the development of sociological theory was the use of the scientific method—the systematic gathering and recording of reliable and accurate data to test ideas. In the next section, we turn to sociology’s major theoretical perspectives.
Sociology’s Major Theoretical Perspectives
A theoretical perspective is a basic view of society that guides sociologists’ research and analysis. Theoretical perspectives are the broadest theories in sociology, providing overall approaches to understanding the social world and social problems. Sociologists draw on major theoretical perspectives at each level of analysis to guide their research and to help them understand social interactions and social organizations. Theories are statements or explanations regarding how and why two or more facts are related to each other and the connections between these facts. A good theory also allows social scientists to make predictions about the social world.
Recall the description of the social world model presented in Chapter 1. It stresses the levels of analysis—smaller units existing within larger social systems. Some theories are especially useful when trying to understand small micro-level interactions, whereas others tend to be used to make sense of large macro-level structures. Either type of theory—those most useful at the micro or macro level—can be used at the meso level, depending on the research question being asked. To illustrate four of the major theoretical perspectives on the social world, we delve into our examination of Hector’s circumstances, introduced at the beginning of this chapter.
Micro- to Meso-Level Theories
If we wanted to study Hector’s interactions with his friends and their influence on him or his school performance, we would turn to micro- and meso-level theories to guide our research. Two theories most often used at the micro and meso levels of analysis are symbolic interaction theory and rational choice theory.
Symbolic Interaction Theory.
Symbolic interaction theory (also called social constructionism or interpretative theory) sees humans as active agents who create shared meanings of symbols and events, and then interact on the basis of those meanings.
Let’s break that down: Through our interactions, we learn to share common ideas, understand what to expect from others, and gain the capability to influence society. As we interact, we make use of symbols, actions or objects that represent something else and therefore have meaning beyond their own existence—such as flags, wedding rings, words, and nonverbal gestures. Such symbolic communication (e.g., language) helps people construct a meaningful world. Humans continually create and re-create society through their construction and interpretation of the social world. More than any other theory in the social sciences, symbolic interaction theory stresses the active role of individuals in creating their social environment, called human agency.
George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), one of the founders of the symbolic interaction perspective, explored how humans define or make sense of situations (G. H. Mead [1934] 1962). He placed special emphasis on human interpretations of gestures and symbols (including language) and the meanings we attach to our actions. He also examined how we learn our social roles in society, including expected behaviors, rights, obligations, responsibilities, and privileges assigned to a social status (such as mother, child, teacher, and friend) and how we learn to carry out these roles. Indeed, as we will see in Chapter 4, Mead insisted that our notion of who we are—our self—emerges from social experience and interaction with others. Language is critical to this process, for it allows us to step outside of our own experience and reflect on how others see us. Indeed, human language is a unique and powerful human trait, as is illustrated in the next Sociology in Our Social World.
Sociology in Our Social World
Human Language and the Marvel of a College Classroom
A college classroom is a magical place, and this is true mostly because of human language. Human language is distinctive. All other species communicate with a fairly limited number of sounds they can make. Other animals, except perhaps for dolphins, whales, and chimpanzees, communicate only about something that is happening in the present time and location like a threat (Phillips 2013).
Each human language identifies about 50 sounds that come to be designated as meaningful language. In English, this includes such sounds as sss, mmm, nnn, ttt, kkk, bbb, and ooo. We take this designated collection of sounds and combine them in various ways to make words: cat, dog, college, student. This ability to combine sounds into words and words into sentences allows you to say something to your instructor that she or he has never heard any other human say before. The sounds are familiar, as are the words themselves, but you may combine them in a novel way that causes a new idea to occur to your listener. This is actually the root of much humor. For example, you can say a sentence or tell a story that has such a surprising ending that it causes the listener to laugh.
Your animal companions at home clearly have memory. They can recognize you when you get home. Your dog may well remember the other pups in his litter. However, they cannot remember together. They cannot gather to recall and share stories about good-old dad the way you can recall the quirky traits of your professors with friends. Your dogs and cats cannot plan for the future—planning a litter reunion for next summer, for example.
The fact that our communication is a distinctive feature system allows something unique: temporal and spatial sharing. We can remember together our experiences of the past, and we can pass ideas from one person to another. We can discuss the ideas of people who have died and have perhaps been gone for more than a century. A mare cannot transmit to her colt the racing ideas of Man o’ War, the great racehorse of the 1920s, let alone the experiences of horses involved in the Trojan War, or even the triple-crown 1970s derby winner, Secretariat. However, whether in a classroom or a pub, humans can discuss the ideas of Plato, or Muhammad, or Karl Marx. Further, because of words humans can take other perspectives—to vicariously visit the other side of the planet or to go back in history to experience a time when an entirely different set of ideas about life was common.
When we come into a classroom, something mysterious, something amazing, happens. Language allows us to see things from a new point of view. What a remarkable gift that we can share ideas and see things through the eyes of someone different from ourselves, and it is largely because of the human distinctive feature system of communication. What an interesting species to study! What a marvel that we can do so in a classroom.
These ideas of how we construct our individual social worlds and have some control over them represent one approach of symbolic interactionism (known as the Chicago School). Another symbolic interaction approach (the Iowa School) makes a clear link between a person’s individual identity and her or his position within organizations. This connects the micro and the meso level of the social system (Kuhn 1964). If we hold
