Asociological theory is asupposition that intends to consider, analyze, and/or explain objects ofsocial reality from asociological perspective,[1]: 14 drawing connections between individual concepts in order to organize and substantiatesociological knowledge. Hence, such knowledge is composed of complex theoretical frameworks andmethodology.[2] These theories range in scope, from concise, yet thorough, descriptions of a single social process to broad, inconclusiveparadigms for analysis andinterpretation. Some sociological theories are designed to explain specific aspects of the social world and allow for predictions about future events, while others serve as broad theoretical frameworks that guide further sociological analysis.[3]Dynamic social theory is the hypothesis that institutions and patterns of behaviour are the social science equivalent of theories in the natural sciences because they embody a great deal of knowledge of how society works and act as social models that are replicated or adapted to achieve predictable outcomes.[4][5]
Prominent sociological theorists includeTalcott Parsons,Robert K. Merton,Randall Collins,James Samuel Coleman,Peter Blau,Niklas Luhmann,Immanuel Wallerstein,George Homans,Theda Skocpol,Gerhard Lenski,Pierre van den Berghe andJonathan H. Turner.[6]
Kenneth Allan (2006) distinguishes sociological theory fromsocial theory, in that the former consists ofabstract andtestable propositions about society, heavily relying on thescientific method which aims forobjectivity and to avoid passingvalue judgments.[7] In contrast,social theory, according to Allan, focuses less on explanation and more oncommentary andcritique ofmodern society. As such, social theory is generally closer tocontinental philosophy insofar as it is less concerned withobjectivity and derivation of testable propositions, thus more likely to proposenormative judgments.[6]
SociologistRobert K. Merton (1949) argued that sociological theory deals withsocial mechanisms, which are essential in exemplifying the 'middle ground' between social law and description.[8]: 43–4 Merton believed these social mechanisms to be "social processes having designated consequences for designated parts of the social structure."[9]
Prominent social theorists include:[6]Jürgen Habermas,Anthony Giddens,Michel Foucault,Dorothy Smith,Roberto Unger,Alfred Schütz,Jeffrey Alexander, andJacques Derrida.
There are also prominent scholars who could be seen as being in-between social and sociological theories, such as:[6]Harold Garfinkel,Herbert Blumer,Claude Lévi-Strauss,Pierre Bourdieu, andErving Goffman.
The field ofsociology itself is a relatively new discipline and so, by extension, is the field of sociological theory. Both date back to the 18th and 19th centuries, periods of drasticsocial change, where societies would begin to see, for example, the emergence ofindustrialization,urbanization,democracy, andearly capitalism, provoking (particularly Western) thinkers to start becoming considerably more aware ofsociety. As such, the field of sociology initially dealt with broad historical processes relating to these changes.
Through a well-cited survey of sociological theory,Randall Collins (1994) retroactively labels various theorists as belonging to four theoretical traditions:[10]functionalism,conflict,symbolic interactionism, andutilitarianism.[11]
While modern sociological theory descends predominately fromfunctionalist (Durkheim) andconflict-oriented (Marx andWeber) perspectives ofsocial structure, it also takes great influence from thesymbolic interactionist tradition, accounting for theories ofpragmatism (Mead,Cooley) andmicro-level structure (Simmel). Likewise,utilitarian theories ofrational choice (equivalent here to "social exchange theory"), although often associated with eitherethics oreconomics, is an established tradition within sociological theory.[12][13]
Lastly, as argued byRaewyn Connell (2007), a tradition that is often forgotten is that ofsocial Darwinism, which applies the logic ofbiological evolution to the social world.[14] This tradition often aligns with classical functionalism and is associated with several founders of sociology, primarilyHerbert Spencer,Lester F. Ward andWilliam Graham Sumner. Contemporary sociological theory retains traces of each of these traditions, which are by no means mutually exclusive.
A broad historical paradigm in sociology,structural functionalism addressessocial structures in its entirety and in terms of the necessary functions possessed by its constituent elements. A common parallel used by functionalists, known as theorganic orbiological analogy[15] (popularized byHerbert Spencer), is to regardnorms andinstitutions as 'organs' that work toward the proper-functioning of the entire 'body' of society.[16] The perspective was implicit in the original sociologicalpositivism ofAuguste Comte, but was theorized in full by Durkheim, again with respect to observable, structural laws.
Functionalism also has ananthropological basis in the work of theorists such asMarcel Mauss,Bronisław Malinowski, andAlfred Radcliffe-Brown, the latter of whom, through explicit usage, introduced the "structural" prefix to the concept.[17] Classical functionalist theory is generally united by its tendency towards the biological analogy and notions ofsocial evolutionism. AsGiddens states: "Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology as the science providing the closest and most compatible model for social science. Biology has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualizing the structure and the function of social systems and to analyzing processes of evolution via mechanisms of adaptation…functionalism strongly emphasizes the pre-eminence of the social world over its individual parts (i.e. its constituent actors, human subjects)."[18]
Conflict theory is a method that attempts, in a scientific manner, to provide causal explanations to the existence of conflict in society. Thus, conflict theorists look at the ways in which conflict arises and is resolved in society, as well as how every conflict is unique. Such theories describe that the origins of conflict in societies are founded in the unequal distribution of resources and power. Though there is no universal definition of what "resources" necessarily includes, most theorists followMax Weber's point of view. Weber viewed conflict as the result ofclass,status, andpower being ways of defining individuals in any given society. In this sense, power defines standards, thus people abide by societal rules and expectation due to an inequality of power.[19]
Karl Marx is believed to be the father ofsocial conflict theory, in whichsocial conflict refers to the struggle between segments of society over valued resources.[20] By the 19th century, a small population in the West had becomecapitalists: individuals who own and operate factories and other businesses in pursuit of profits, owning virtually all large-scale means of production.[21] However, theorists believe that capitalism turned most other people into industrial workers, or, in Marx's terms,proletarians: individuals who, because of the structure of capitalist economies, must sell their labor for wages. It is through this notion that conflict theories challenge historically dominant ideologies, drawing attention to such power differentials as class, gender and race. Conflict theory is therefore amacrosociological approach, in which society is interpreted as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and social change.[1]: 15
Other important sociologists associated with social conflict theory includeHarriet Martineau,Jane Addams, andW. E. B. Du Bois. Rather than observing the ways in which social structures help societies to operate, this sociological approach looks at how "social patterns" cause certain individuals to become dominant in society, while causing others to be oppressed.[1] Accordingly, some criticisms to this theory are that it disregards how shared values and the way in which people rely on each other help to unify society.[1]
Symbolic interaction—often associated withinteractionism,phenomenological sociology,dramaturgy (sociology), andinterpretivism—is a sociological approach that places emphasis on subjectivemeanings and, usually through analysis, on the empirical unfolding of social processes.[1]: 16 Such processes are believed to rely on individuals and their actions, which is ultimately necessary for society to exists. This phenomenon was first theorized byGeorge Herbert Mead who described it as theoutcome of collaborative joint action.
The approach focuses on creating a theoretical framework that observes society as the product of everyday interactions of individuals. In other words, society in its most basic form is nothing more than the shared reality constructed by individuals as they interact with one another. In this sense, individuals interact within countless situations through symbolic interpretations of their given reality, whereby society is a complex, ever-changing mosaic of subjectivemeanings.[1]: 19 Some critics of this approach argue that it focuses only on ostensible characteristics of social situations while disregarding the effects of culture, race, or gender (i.e. social-historical structures).[1]
Important sociologists traditionally associated with this approach includeGeorge Herbert Mead,Herbert Blumer, andErving Goffman. New contributions to the perspective, meanwhile, include those ofHoward Becker,Gary Alan Fine,David Altheide, Robert Prus, Peter M. Hall, David R. Maines, as well as others.[22] It is also in this tradition that the radical-empirical approach ofethnomethodology emerged from the work ofHarold Garfinkel.
Utilitarianism is often referred to asexchange theory orrational choice theory in the context of sociology. This tradition tends to privilege theagency of individual rational actors, assuming that, within interactions, individuals always seek to maximize their own self-interest. As argued byJosh Whitford (2002), rational actors can be characterized as possessing four basic elements:[23]
Exchange theory is specifically attributed to the work ofGeorge C. Homans,Peter Blau, and Richard Emerson.[24] Organizational sociologistsJames G. March andHerbert A. Simon noted that an individual'srationality is bounded by the context or organizational setting. The utilitarian perspective in sociology was, most notably, revitalized in the late 20th century by the work of formerASA presidentJames Samuel Coleman.
Overall, there is a strong consensus regarding the central theoretical questions and the key problems that emerge from explicating such questions in sociology. In general, sociological theory attempts to answer the following three questions: (1) What is action?; (2) What is social order?; and (3) What determines social change?
In the myriad of attempts to answer these questions, three predominantly theoretical (i.e. not empirical) issues emerge, largely inherited from classical theoretical traditions. The consensus on the central theoretical problems is how tolink,transcend orcope with the following "big three" dichotomies:[25]
Lastly, sociological theory often grapples with a subset of all three central problems through the problem of integrating or transcending the divide betweenmicro-,meso- andmacro-level social phenomena. These problems are not altogether empirical. Rather, they areepistemological: they arise from the conceptual imagery and analytical analogies that sociologists use to describe the complexity of social processes.[25]
The issue ofsubjectivity andobjectivity can be divided into a concern over (a)the general possibilities of social actions; and (b)the specific problem of social scientific knowledge. In regard to the former, thesubjective is often equated (though not necessarily) with "the individual" and the individual's intentions and interpretations of the "objective". Theobjective, on the other hand, is usually considered to be any public/external action or outcome, on up to societywrit large.
A primary question for social theorists is how knowledge reproduces along the chain of subjective-objective-subjective. That is to say, how isintersubjectivity achieved?[26] While, historically,qualitative methods have attempted to tease out subjective interpretations,quantitative survey methods also attempt to capture individual subjectivities. Moreover, some qualitative methods take a radical approach to objective descriptionin situ.
Insofar as subjectivity & objectivity are concerned with (b) the specific problem of social scientific knowledge, such concern results from the fact that a sociologist is part of thevery object they seek to explain, as expressed by Bourdieu:[27]
How can the sociologist effect in practice this radical doubting which is indispensable for bracketing all the presuppositions inherent in the fact that she is a social being, that she is therefore socialized and led to feel "like a fish in water" within that social world whose structures she has internalized? How can she prevent the social world itself from carrying out the construction of the object, in a sense, through her, through these unself-conscious operations or operations unaware of themselves of which she is the apparent subject
— Pierre Bourdieu, "The Problem of Reflexive Sociology",An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (1992), p. 235
Structure and agency (ordeterminism andvoluntarism)[28] form an enduringontological debate in social theory: "Do social structures determine an individual's behaviour or does human agency?" In this context,agency refers to the capacity of an individual to act independently and make free choices, whereasstructure relates to factors that limit or affect the choices and actions of the individual (e.g.social class,religion,gender,ethnicity, etc.).
Discussions over the primacy of either structure and agency relate to the core of sociologicalontology, i.e. "what is the social world made of?", "what is a cause in the social world", and "what is an effect?".[29] A perennial question within this debate is that of "social reproduction": how are structures (specifically structures that produce inequality) reproduced through the choices of individuals?
Synchrony and diachrony (orstatics anddynamics) within social theory are terms that refer to a distinction emerging out of the work ofLevi-Strauss who inherited it from the linguistics ofFerdinand de Saussure.[30] The former slices moments of time for analysis, thus it is an analysis of static social reality. Diachrony, on the other hand, attempts to analyze dynamic sequences. Following Saussure, synchrony would describe social phenomena at a specific point of time, while diachrony would refer to unfolding processes in time. InAnthony Giddens' introduction toCentral Problems in Social Theory, he states that, "in order to show the interdependence of action and structure...we must grasp the time space relations inherent in the constitution of all social interaction." And like structure and agency, time is integral to discussion ofsocial reproduction. In terms of sociology, historical sociology is often better positioned to analyze social life as diachronic, while survey research takes a snapshot of social life and is thus better equipped to understand social life as synchronic. Some argue that the synchrony of social structure is a methodological perspective rather than an ontological claim.[30] Nonetheless, the problem for theory is how to integrate the two manners of recording and thinking about social data.
The contemporary discipline of sociology is theoretically multi-paradigmatic,[31] encompassing a greater range of subjects, includingcommunities,organizations, andrelationships, than when the discipline first began.[32]
Strain theory is a theoretical perspective that identifiesanomie (i.e. normlessness) as the result of a society that provides little moral guidance to individuals.[1]: 134
Emile Durkheim (1893) first describedanomie as one of the results of an inequitabledivision of labour within a society, observing that social periods of disruption resulted in greater anomie and higher rates of suicide and crimes.[33][34] In this sense, broadly speaking, during times of great upheaval, increasing numbers of individuals "cease to accept the moral legitimacy of society," as noted by sociologist Anthony R. Mawson (1970).[35]
Robert K. Merton would go on to theorize that anomie, as well as some forms ofdeviant behavior, derive largely from a disjunction between "culturally prescribed aspirations" of a society and "socially structured avenues for realizing those aspirations."[36]
Developed byErving Goffman,[i] dramaturgy (akadramaturgical perspective) is a particularized paradigm of symbolic interactionism that interprets life to be a performance (i.e. adrama). As "actors," we have a status, i.e. the part that we play, by which we are given various roles.[1]: 16 These roles serve as a script, supplying dialogue and action for the characters (i.e. the people in reality).[1]: 19 Roles also involve props and certain settings. For example, a doctor (the role), uses instruments like a heart monitor (the prop), all the while using medical terms (the script), while in their doctor's office (the setting).[1]: 134
In addition, ourperformance is the "presentation of self," which is how people perceive us, based on the ways in which we portray ourselves.[1]: 134 This process, known asimpression management, begins with the idea of personal performance.[37]
Mathematical theory (akaformal theory) refers to the use ofmathematics in constructing social theories. Mathematical sociology aims to sociological theory in formal terms, which such theories can be understood to lack. The benefits of this approach not only include increased clarity, but also, through mathematics, the ability to derive theoretical implications that could not be arrived at intuitively. As such, models typically used in mathematical sociology allow sociologists to understand how predictable local interactions are often able to elicit global patterns of social structure.[38]
Positivism is a philosophy, developed in the middle of the 19th century byAuguste Comte, that states that the only authentic knowledge isscientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through a strictscientific method.[39] Society operates according to laws just like the physical world, thusintrospective orintuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected. The positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history ofwestern thought, from antiquity to the present day.
Postmodernism, adhering to anti-theory and anti-method, believes that, due to human subjectivity, discoveringobjective truth is impossible or unachievable.[1]: 10 In essence, the postmodernist perspective is one that exists as a counter tomodernist thought, especially through its mistrust ingrand theories and ideologies
The objective truth that is touted by modernist theory is believed by postmodernists to be impossible due to the ever-changing nature of society, wherebytruth is also constantly subject to change. A postmodernists purpose, therefore, is to achieve understanding through observation, rather than data collection, using both micro and macro level analyses.[1]: 53
Questions that are asked by this approach include: "How do we understand societies or interpersonal relations, while rejecting the theories and methods of the social sciences, and our assumptions about human nature?" and "How does power permeate social relations or society, and change with the circumstances?"[1]: 19 One of the most prominent postmodernists in the approach's history is the French philosopherMichel Foucault.[ii]
.jpg)
Thegeneral theory of crime refers to the proposition byMichael R. Gottfredson andTravis Hirschi (1990) that the main factor in criminal behaviour is the individual's lack ofself-control.[51][52]
Theorists who do not distinguish the differences that exist between criminals and noncriminals are considered to be classical orcontrol theorists. Such theorists believe that those who perform deviant acts do so out of enjoyment without care for consequences. Likewise, positivists view criminals actions as a result of the person themselves instead of the nature of the person.[53]
The essential notion oflabeling theory is that deviance and conformity result not so much from what people do as from how others respond to these actions.[1]: 203 It also states that a society's reaction to specific behaviors are a major determinant of how a person may come to adopt a "deviant" label.[1]: 204 This theory stresses the relativity of deviance, the idea that people may define the same behavior in any number of ways. Thus the labelling theory is a micro-level analysis and is often classified in the social-interactionist approach.[54]
A hate crime can be defined as a criminal act against a person or a person's property by an offender motivated by racial, ethnic, religious or other bias. Hate crimes may refer to race, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation and physical disabilities. According toStatistics Canada, the "Jewish" community has been the most likely to be victim to hate crimes in Canada in 2001–2002. Overall, about 57% of hate crimes are motivated by ethnicity and race, targeting mainly Blacks and Asians, while 43% target religion, mainly Judaism and Islam. A relatively small 9% is motivated by sexual orientation, targets gays and lesbians.[1]: 208–9
Physical traits do not distinguish criminals from non criminals, but genetic factors together with environmental factors are strongpredictors of adult crime and violence.[1]: 198–9 Most psychologists see deviance as the result of "unsuccessful" socialization and abnormality in an individual personality.[1]: 198–9
Apsychopath can be defined as a serious criminal who does not feel shame or guilt from their actions, as they have little (if any) sympathy for the people they harm, nor do they fear punishment.[1]: 199 Individuals of such nature may also be known to have anantisocial personality disorder.Robert D. Hare, one of the world's leading experts on psychopathy, developed an important assessment device for psychopathy, known as thePsychopathy Checklist (revised). For many, this measure is the single, most important advancement to date toward what will hopefully become our ultimate understanding of psychopathy.[55]: 641
Psychopaths exhibit a variety of maladaptive traits, such as rarity in experience of genuine affection for others. Moreover, they are skilled at faking affection; are irresponsible, impulsive, hardly tolerant of frustration; and they pursue immediate gratification.[55]: 614 Likewise,containment theory suggests that those with a stronger conscience will be more tolerable to frustrations, thus less likely to be involved in criminal activities.[1]: 198–9
Sutherland andCressey (1978) define white-collar crime as crime committed by persons of high social position in the course of their occupation.[56] The white-collar crime involves people making use of their occupational position to enrich themselves and others illegally, which often causes public harm. In white-collar crime, public harm wreaked by false advertising, marketing of unsafe products, embezzlement, and bribery of public officials is more extensive than most people think, most of which go unnoticed and unpunished.[1]: 206
Likewise,corporate crime refers to the illegal actions of a corporation or people acting on its behalf. Corporate crime ranges from knowingly selling faulty or dangerous products to purposely polluting the environment. Like white-collar crime, most cases of corporate crime go unpunished, and many are not never even known to the public.[1]: 206
.svg)
