interaction theory pictures humans as consciously and deliberately creating their personal and collective histories. The theory emphasizes the part that verbal and nonverbal language and gestures play in the shared symbols of individuals and the smooth operation of society. More than any other theory in the social sciences, symbolic interaction stresses the active decision-making role of individuals—the ability of individuals to do more than conform to the larger forces of the society.
Many of our definitions of what is “normal” are shaped by what others around us define as “normal” or “good.” The social construction of reality is the process by which individuals and groups shape their reality through social interaction. Our construction of what we see as reality, influenced by our social relations, has a profound effect on our daily lives, our life chances, and what we believe is possible in our lives. One illustration of this is the notion of what is beautiful or ugly. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, in Europe and the United States, beaches were considered eyesores because there was nothing there but crushed stone and dangerous water. A beach was not viewed as a place to relax in a beautiful environment. Likewise, when early travelers to the West encountered the Rocky Mountains, with soaring granite rising to snow-capped peaks, the idea was that these were incredibly ugly wounds in the earth’s surface. The summits were anything but appealing. We now see both as beautiful, but the social construction of scenery has not always been so (Lofgren 1999, 2010). So even what we experience as relaxing and peaceful in nature is shaped by how our society constructs those experiences.
▲ In the late 1700s and early 1800s, this mountain view would have been considered an eyesore—too ugly to enjoy and an obstacle to progress. The social construction of reality—the definition of what is beautiful in our culture—has changed dramatically over the past 2 centuries.
© Design Pics Inc/National Geographic Creative
This notion that individuals shape culture and that culture influences individuals is at the core of symbolic interaction theory. Other social theories tend to focus on the meso and macro levels.
Thinking Sociologically
Think about how you communicate with one or more of your close friends. What are some of the symbols you use to communicate with one another? How do these forms of communication indicate that you are close friends and help you feel connected to them?
Cultural Theories at the Meso and Macro Levels
How can we explain such diverse world practices as eating termites and worshipping cows? Why have some societies allowed men to have four wives, whereas others—such as the Shakers—have prohibited any sex between men and women? Why do some groups worship their ancestors, others have many gods, and yet others believe in a single divine being? How can societies adapt to extremes of climate and geographical terrain—hot, cold, dry, wet, mountainous, and flat? Humankind has evolved practices so diverse that it would be hard to find a practice that has not been adopted in some society at some time in history.
To explain these cultural differences, we refer to two already familiar perspectives that have made important contributions to understanding culture at the meso and macro levels: structural-functional and conflict theories.
Structural-Functional Theory.
Structural-functional theorists (also called functionalists) ask why members of an ethnic subculture or a society engage in certain practices. To answer, they look at how those practices contribute to the survival or social solidarity of the group or society as a whole. Consider the reverence for cattle in India. The sacred cow is protected, treated with respect, and not slaughtered for food. The reasons relate to India’s ancient development into an agricultural society that required sacrifices. Cattle were needed to pull plows and to provide a source of milk and dried dung for fuel. Cows gained religious significance because of their importance for the survival of early agricultural communities. They must, therefore, be protected from hungry people for the long-term survival of the group. Protecting cows was functional; that is, the practice served a purpose for society (Harris 1989).
Functionalists view societies as composed of interdependent parts, each fulfilling certain necessary functions or purposes for the total society (Radcliffe-Brown 1935). Shared norms, values, and beliefs, for instance, serve the function of holding a social group together. At a global macro level, functionalists see the world moving in the direction of having a common culture, potentially reducing we-versus-they thinking and promoting unity across boundaries. Synthesis of cultures and even the loss of some cultures are viewed as a natural result of globalization. But read on!
Although most cultural practices serve positive functions for the maintenance and stability of society, some practices, such as slavery and those using child labor, may be functional for those in power but dysfunctional for minority groups or individual members of society. The fact that some societies are weak or have died out suggests that their way of life may not have been functional in the long run. Consider the case of Haiti, a country weakened, in part, because all the forests have been cut down to provide firewood. The resulting erosion made much of the land unusable for growing crops and led to a scarcity of food (Diamond 2012; FAO 2016). Add to the existing poverty and hunger the devastation brought about by two earthquakes in 2010 that damaged or destroyed most buildings, followed by a hurricane and a cholera epidemic. The country and its people must rely on external support and donations from other countries to survive as it tries to rebuild.
The functionalist perspective has been criticized because it fails to consider how much dysfunction a society has, how much conflict a society can tolerate, and how much unity is necessary for a society to survive. Some critics argue that functional theory overemphasizes the need for consensus and integration among different parts of society, thus ignoring conflicts that may point to problems such as inequality in societies (Dahrendorf 1959).
Conflict Theory.
With rapid change from processes of globalization, many global citizens face uncertain futures. These rapid changes result in excitement for those who see prosperity and success in the global trends, to those who see threats to their familiar ways of life. How do different theoretical perspectives try to make sense of the changes? Whereas functionalists assume consensus exists because all people in society have learned the same cultural values, rules, and expectations, conflict theorists do not view culture as having this uniting effect. Conflict theorists describe societies as composed of meso-level groups—class, ethnic, religious, and political groups—vying for power. Each group protects its own self-interests and struggles to make its own cultural ways dominant in the society. Instead of consensus, the dominant groups may impose their cultural beliefs on minorities and other subcultural groups, thus laying the groundwork for conflict. Conflict theorists identify tension between meso and macro levels, whereas functionalists tend to focus on harmony and smooth integration between those levels.
▲ Conflict theorists believe that society is composed of groups, each acting to meet its own self-interests. In 2018, Greek taxi drivers rallied against Uber, which charges cheaper rates because it employs mostly part-time workers and does not pay benefits. According to public transportation associations, car-booking services undermine the livelihoods of taxi drivers.
©
