Question 1:
In an ever-changing society, with the billions of people who inhabit the earth, not a single individual is unaffected by the multitude of changes and fluctuations in societies that have occurred throughout contemporary history. These changes in societies structure presently affect even the most minute details of every individual’s daily life. Conversely, it is also true that decisions made by man or woman on an individual level has some degree of impact, either positive or negative, on the trajectory of society going forward, thus as C. Wright Mills stated in The Sociological Imagination (1959), “Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both” (p. 1). To expound upon this, I will use the lives of both Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim to serve as an example that a sociological imagination is crucial to understanding the world in which we live, while simultaneously being able to give one a better knowledge of sociological theory.
With that being stated, take for example a man who scarcely makes a living as a coffee farmer in Indonesia. Why is he a coffee farmer and not a business executive? How does his role as a coffee farmer make an impact in the world in which he lives? Lastly and possibly most importantly, how can he process the summation of his thoughts and individual experiences in relation to the broader workings of society? It is the millions of questions like these being asked and mulled over each day by every individual that the sociological imagination helps shed light upon. If one is to better understand the linkage between individual incidents and circumstances in relation to these remote and impersonal historical forces, it is the sociological imagination that I contend is crucial in providing the connection between individual experiences and the broader workings of society.
The sociological imagination is a concept used by Mills to help us become more aware of how our personal situation is linked to the broader forces of history and society. As Mill’s stated, “The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals” (p. 2). It enables us to better understand the relationship between both history and biography within society. Stemming from that, it also helps us to better understand theory, which is built out of perspectives and assumptions rooted in the issues and problems of history and biography and how they both intersect. Since theory itself is grounded in history, which came from theorists who throughout the ages sought to understand the world around them through their own personal experiences, the sociological imagination can help us better understand how a specific sociological theory originated.
To develop a better knowledge of how the sociological imagination helps us understand sociological theory, Herbert Spencer can be used as an example. Important to note is the fact that Spencer, just as every other theorist, was forming his theory from his own perspective and worldview, in which he made assumptions about the society in which he lived. This is on a base level, but the sociological imagination helps us to understand how and why Spencer came up with the ideas that he did. To state again that theory itself is grounded in history, it is a necessity to look at the times that he lived in, which greatly influenced his writing.
The Enlightenment and a positivistic way of thinking about the world were very prominent during Spencer’s day. Also, Spencer was not formerly trained in any specific academic discipline; he freely wrote in many different academic areas, picking the minds of many intellectuals (Allen p. 24). It was likely this broad base that influenced Spencer to form his grand theory, which assumes that everything in the universe operates in systemic manner (p. 24). Taking into account his personal background and academic upbringing or lack thereof, it is logical that Spencer would think that everything in the universe could be explained by a single theory.
To make one last case for how the sociological imagination can help us better understand society, I will use Emile Durkheim and the assumptions he had about human nature, which in turn developed a major contribution he made to sociology that he labeled as “collective consciousness.” Durkheim believed that apart from society, humans are naturally self-centered and driven by insatiable desires (p. 102). Due to the time in which Durkheim lived, where massive social changes were taking effect and culture was being experienced in ways like never before, Durkheim, like many others were questioning the general state of humanity and society (p. 108). It was this “collective consciousness,” or ideas, beliefs and feelings that each individual has that was essential in keeping social integration in an increasingly complex society. It is through this collective consciousness that society is able to become aware of itself and in turn we become aware of ourselves as social beings (p. 108).
Overall, the sociological imagination can help one grasp the fact that every human being is both a creature and an agent of their social environment. In the quest for meaning that every individual pursues, the sociological imagination enables us to “think ourselves away” from the familiar routines of our daily lives in order to look at them anew. It can help one both understand what is going on in the world, while understanding “what is happening in themselves as minute points of the intersections of biography and history within society” (Mills p.4).
Question 2:
Before addressing some of the key differences between functionalism and conflict theory, it is imperative to recognize two key foundations out of which differences arise from the particular theories being looked at. This in turn will enable us to better understand why differences exist to begin with. The first is that theory is birthed from differing perspectives that seek to address the same phenomenon, which is simply understanding the vast and complex society in which we live. Second and perhaps most importantly, the person behind the two theories in which we are trying to understand had different upbringings, educational experiences and life patterns/events, all of which are crucial to fully comprehending the differences between the two theories being addressed. In this paper, I intend to explicate some of the key differences between functionalism and conflict theory by providing examples from the lives of both Herbert Spencer and Karl Marx, which will enable me to expound upon how these differences arose to form two varying theories.
A major tenet of functionalism is the understanding that society is a system that is created of different parts, in which each part has a specific function. This view of society as a system is based on the premise that each part, comprising the whole of the system must contribute effectively, or the inevitable consequence will be disorder and dysfunction. To state it differently, society has requisite needs, or requirements that every system must meet in order to survive, which is an “essential assumption of the functionalist perspective” (Allen p. 28). These requisite needs of society must be met and these various parts function together for the welfare of the whole (p. 54). Taking into consideration that Spencer lived in an enlightened time where science put forth much hope for progress, it follows logic that he was one of the first to think in evolutionary terms, where he saw the system needs of society working much like that of an organism. The survival of an organism (society) is contingent upon the structures built inside of it, such as the bodies need for oxygen where the lungs help fulfill this need. In light of this, it is crucial to understand that Spencer approached society as an object in the environment and thus tried to explain how this object worked, not necessarily seeking to change the way people thought.
For functionalism, the central feature of society is stability and harmony where needs are met and regulated by various parts functioning together. Overall, functionalism views the system of social structures as entities that work together for the benefit of all. Contrary to this is the conflict theory, which sees inequality and the struggle for power as the central features of society. In contrast to Spencer, Marx took a more critical perspective on the society in which he lived and viewed factors like commodities, profit and division of labor that are natural to social evolution as instruments of oppression that dramatically affect people’s life chances (p. 72). Conflict theory views the social progression of society as tensions between resources, power and status that are engines for social change. Although both theories view society as a system of social structures and both agree that these structures exist within society, Marx saw that society is in a constant struggle because within society, groups have differing amounts of resources, in which the more powerful groups with more resources exploit those with less power and resources.
Lastly, even though both theories differ in their approach to understanding the society in which we live, they are still both macro-sociological theories. The focus of both theories is on society as a whole from a broad lens. Whereas functionalism uses the organismic model as an analogy to describe how each part functioning together meets the system’s needs as a whole, Marx’s conflict theory uses a layered approach where the economy provides a basis for much of our understanding of perpetual class conflict and the struggle for power.
Do you want your assignment written by the best essay experts? Then look no further. Our teams of experienced writers are on standby to deliver to you a quality written paper as per your specified instructions. Order now, and enjoy an amazing discount!!
