Perspectives of sociology

Sociologists view society in different ways. Some see the world basically as a stable and ongoing entity. They are impressed with the endurance of the family, organized religion, and other social institutions. Some sociologists see society as com­posed of many groups in conflict, competing for scarce resources. To other sociologists, the most fascinating aspects of the social world are the everyday, routine interactions among individuals that we sometimes take for granted.

These differing perspectives of society are all ways of examining the same phenomena. Socio­logical imagination may employ any of a number of theoretical approaches in order to study human behavior. From these approaches, sociol­ogists develop theories to explain specific types of behavior. The three perspectives that are most widely used by sociologists will provide an intro­ductory look at the discipline. These are the func­tionalist, conflict, and interactionist perspectives.

Functionalist Perspective

In the view of functionalists, society is like a living organism in which each part of the organism con tributes to its survival. Therefore, the functional­ist perspective emphasizes the way that parts of a society are structured to maintain its stability. Emile Durkheim's analysis of religion repre­sented a critical contribution to the development of functionalism. As noted earlier, Durkheim fo­cused on the role of religion in reinforcing feel­ings of solidarity and unity within group life.

The work of Durkheim, Max Weber, and other European sociologists greatly influenced Talcott Parsons (1902—1979), a Harvard University soci­ologist. Unlike most of his American contempo­raries. Parsons was anxious to study in Europe; he went first to the London School of Economics and then to the University of Heidelberg. While at the latter school, he attended a regular Sunday morning salon at which Weber's ideas were dis­cussed by scholars.

For over four decades. Parsons dominated American sociology with his advocacy of func­tionalism. He saw any society as a vast network of connected parts, each of which contributes to the maintenance of the system as a whole. Under the functionalist approach, if an aspect of social life does not contribute to society's stability or sur­vival—if it does not serve some identifiable useful function or promote value consensus among members of a society—it will not be passed on from one generation to the next.

As an example of the functionalist perspective, let us examine prostitution. Why is it that a prac­tice so widely condemned continues to display such persistence and vitality? Functionalists sug­gest that prostitution—the use of sex for nonsex­ual ends—satisfies needs of patrons that may not be readily met through more socially acceptable forms such as courtship or marriage. The "buyer" receives sex without any responsibility for procreation or sentimental attachment; at the same time, the "seller" gains a livelihood through this exchange.

Through such an examination, we can con­clude that prostitution does perform certain functions that society seems to need. However, this is not to suggest that prostitution is a desira­ble or legitimate form of social behavior. Func­tionalists do not make such judgments, and cer­tainly do not wish to condone the abuses or crimes that prostitutes and their clients may com­mit. Rather, advocates of the functionalist per­spective hope to explain how an aspect of society so frequently attacked can nevertheless manage to survive.

Manifest and Latent Functions A university cat­alog typically presents various stated functions of the institution. It may inform us, for example, that the university intends to "offer each student a broad education in classical and contemporary thought, in the humanities, in the sciences, and in the arts." However, it would be quite a surprise if we came across a catalog which declared: "This university was founded in 1895 to keep people between the ages of 18 and 22 out of the job mar­ket, thus reducing unemployment." No college catalog will declare that this is the purpose of the university. Yet societal institutions serve many functions, some of them quite subtle. The univer­sity, in fact, does delay people's entry into the job market.

In order to better examine the functions of in­stitutions, Robert Merton made an important distinction between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions of institutions are open, stated, conscious functions. They in­volve the intended, recognized consequences of an aspect of society, such as the university's role in certifying academic competence and excel­lence. By contrast, latent functions are uncon­scious or covert functions and may reflect hidden purposes of an institution. One latent function of universities is to serve as a meeting ground for people seeking marital partners. Latent functions of institutions are sometimes unintended and may even go unrecognized.

Dysfunctions Functionalists acknowledge that not all parts of a society contribute to its stability all the time. A dysfunction refers to an element of process of society that may actually disrupt a so­cial system or lead to a decrease in stability.

Many dysfunctional behavior patterns, such as homicide, are widely regarded as undesirable. Yet dysfunctions should not automatically be in­terpreted as negative. The evaluation of a dys­function depends on one's own values, or, as the saying goes, on "where you sit." For example, physicians typically believe that a receptionist serves an essential role in providing for the or­derly arrangement of patients' visits. Yet, accord­ing to sociologists Sara Arber and Lucianne Saw­yer (1985), many patients view the receptionist as а virtual "dragon behind the desk" who prevents or limits direct interaction with the doctor and delays appointments as long as possible. In socio­logical terms, the role of the receptionist can be viewed as functional from the perspective of the medical practitioner but dysfunctional from the perspective of the patient seeking the physician's attention.