What sociological paradigm is better at explaining people, structural-functionalism or conflict paradigms?

Question

I lean toward one of the paradigms but see the relevance in the other. Explain your choice.

I hate it when yahoo cuts off a long word .... structural-functionalism or conflict paradigms.

GOETHE -
You are right, symbolic interactionism works well with small groups but overall I do not find it suffiecient - that's why I didn't have it as a 3rd option in my question. I am only concerned with S-F and conflict theories.

OLD COP -
Did you get lost somewhere? Forget to take your meds or wander away from the old folks' home? Read the question and then ask yourself: "WHAT THE HELL AM I DOING HERE? IT'S ALMOST PUDDNIG TIME!"

NIBANA -
Don't encourage Old Cop, he's aimlessly wandering around the net giving answers without reading questions. BTW, hae you ever even opened a sociology book?

Answer 1

I'm not sure what you mean by "explaining people." Sociology basically deals with the structures (associations, institutions, groups) and functions (consequences of the structures) of society. The theoretical orientation that comes closest to "explaining people" is symbolic interactionism.

Symbolic interactionism was developed at the University of Chicago by George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley. They were both interested in the way that we come to form a self-image based on our interactions with others. Mead's approach is called "The Theory of the Generalized Other;" Cooley's is known as "The Looking-glass Self." Both theories lead to the same basic conclusion: We see ourselves as others see us.

A few years later, Harry Stack Sullivan was writing about Cooley's work. He concentrated on Cooley's idea that certain people (parents, siblings, teachers) make evaluations of us that count more than the opinions of all other people. He called these individuals "significant others."

With regard to the paradigms that you mentioned, I think that structural-functionalism is better at explaining social cohesion and conflict theory is better at explaining social tensions or "disorganization." I also believe that they can be used in concert. For example, if you're looking at the economic institution, structural-functionalsim is good for understanding how a society negotiates the change from primary economy (where people deal with raw materials -- farming, fishing, hunting) to secondary economy (where people manufacture things -- furniture making, automobiles) to tertiary economy (where people perform services -- banking, practicing medicine, selling things).

Conflict theory is better at analyzing why "the poor pay more," why there is so much poverty in an affluent society, how we are changing into a two-tiered society, etc.

I've always recommended taking an eclectic approach: use structural-functionalism where it does the best job; use conflict theory where it explains phenomenon, and use symbolic interactionism when you're looking at small groups or the development of personalities.

They are definitely DIFFERENT approaches to the study of society, but one is not necessarily BETTER than another.

I hope that I haven't confused you. Sometimes it's difficult to grasp the fact that you're not constrained to one mode of thought.

Answer 2

I would say that conflict theory and symbolic interactionism would be best.

Answer 3

functionalism is conservative. the conflict will be better to explain why two adults are fighting over which city is better.

Answer 4

lol, laughingstock.. right.. right.. california is the richest AND most important state in the union you pathetic cracker, i can detect the jealousy in you pathetic posts you pathetic middle aged virgin.
and yea, new york is cool... a cool enough place for terrorists to target for their attacks you homo ahhaahahah
never forget, California > your life