Introduction
During the last several years, COVID-19 has become one of the most commonly discussed themes in society across the globe. Some people want to understand its causes and predict the spread of the pandemic, while others try to examine the event through the prism of the existing theories and approaches. In sociology, there are many critical theories to explore the chosen subject in the field. Macionis (2003) identifies three major theoretical paradigms, namely structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory. Each theoretical standpoint has its characteristics, benefits, and limitations, but all of them may be used to understand the essence of COVID-19 and create a more-or-less clear map to guide their thinking processes. This paper is a good opportunity to explore COVID-19 through the issue of social stratification. During the pandemic, the quality of treatment, isolation, and other social restrictions have different outcomes, depending on wealth, income, and other social factors that determine people according to class or caste. Structural-functional, social-conflict, and symbolic-interaction theoretical perspectives introduce a specific understanding of social stratification that helps analyze COVID-19 as an inevitable challenge or a solid opportunity for individuals from different social groups.
Structural Functionalism
Structural functionalism is one of the ways to view the theme of COVID-19 in today’s society. The main idea of this theory is that society is a complex system, with its parts working together to maintain stability and equality in all spheres (Macionis, 2003). Analyzing social relations at the macro-level, functionalists believe that people’s positions reflect their skills and abilities, and social stratification fairly promotes unequal rewards due to the offered and achieved benefits (Macionis, 2003). In this theory, society has to be stable and exist in a certain order to ensure all people follow the same rules of what is right and what is wrong. As soon as a mistake or another event causes a disbalance in social interactions, people must clarify the reason and find an effective solution. Structural functionalists do not approve of deviation from common rules and standards, and the task is to understand how to make society work as a whole and equally link all its parts.
During the pandemic, people were exposed to an infectious disease that they could not initially control and predict. It was impossible for everyone to be protected until enough information was gathered and shared among the population. In this case, from a structural-functional point of view, COVID-19 is a disease or a deviance from a commonly applied order. To find a solution, all healthcare providers began developing new prevention strategies and restrictions, and the governments promoted isolation and distance work policies to stop the virus from spreading. I observed how many people followed those recommendations and stayed home to protect their health, while others neglected the rules and continued their everyday activities. As a result, COVID-19 disrupted society and challenged stability and equality. Some families could stop working or complete their responsibilities at home, while many low- and middle-income individuals had to put their lives at risk. In this case, the pandemic changed society and split it into those who could adjust to the temporary restrictions and not lose everything and those who could not achieve the same results.
Symbolic Interaction
The symbolic-interaction approach is another way to see and understand the progress and impact of COVID-19 on society. According to Macionis (2003), this micro-level orientation represents society as an outcome of an ongoing process based on people’s feelings, experiences, and interactions. Compared to the previous perspective that shares a big picture of how people accept and follow the rules, symbolic interactionists underline the dependence on personal decisions and actions (Macionis, 2003). This theory proves the importance of understanding things and events, making personal choices, and integrating activities to create the reality that people want. Thus, social phenomena such as stratification or the pandemic may be fair or not, depending on individual social positions and differences.
Applying this lens to COVID-19, several critical conclusions can be made. First, I realize that symbolic interactionists help people understand a situation from their own points of view. For example, I believed that the virus was dangerous and put at risk all people, regardless of race, gender, or age. Some patients could recover, while thousands of people died because of their neglect and unwillingness to accept reality or follow the imposed restrictions. Many of my friends did not consider COVID-19 a serious threat, but they continued staying at home just because others did the same. Although not all social groups got access to a free vaccination, the government and healthcare facilities did everything possible to restore a normal state of affairs in society. Interactions played an important role in solving the pandemic problem and achieving the safest living conditions, employment, and working environments. At the same time, new options and interesting details were discovered. I know the families who started their businesses and invited experts from around the world because remote work was no longer an alternative but a preferred obligation, proving that personal perceptions defined their success.
Conflict Theory
The third approach to analyzing the pandemic is related to the social-conflict framework. According to these theorists, there are always at least two groups of people, dominant and disadvantaged, and society becomes a large area where competition and inequality emerge, provoking change and conflict (Macionis, 2003). As well as structural functionalism, conflict theory defines interpersonal relationships at the macro level, focusing on society as a whole (Macionis, 2003). However, their major difference is the conditions within which people develop: stability and solidarity (functionalism) vs. change and inequality (conflict theory). Thus, addressing the conflict perspective, social stratification is an unfair division of resources that might benefit one group of people and challenge another. People need to compete to understand their purposes and achievements better, and this struggle explains the possibility of having something or losing everything. The social-conflict approach is frequently used to emphasize social and economic inequalities, including differences in healthcare quality and delivery, access to resources, and the level of knowledge.
In the COVID-19 context, conflict theory properly explains the conditions under which people get treatment and care. On the one hand, individuals with high-level medical and health literacy understand the threats of the virus and follow recommendations offered during the pandemic. They consider isolation, improved hygiene rules, and social distance as the necessary means to avoid health complications. On the other hand, some groups do not get adequate care and drugs to recover quickly. Disadvantaged individuals continue working and exposing themselves to infections with no possibility of using all services. Rich people get the best oxygen therapies, medications, and services. I read many articles about how poor countries could not help their citizens to stabilize the pandemic outcome because of a lack of resources and knowledge. Even in the United States, multiple deaths were provoked due to unequal and unfair treatment despite the intention to protect everyone.
Conclusion
Taking into consideration the frameworks offered in this paper, I think that symbolic interactionism is one of the best options to understand the essence of the pandemic today. The functionalist approach has its pros, explaining the functions of society and the importance of knowledge integration in each sphere of life. However, COVID-19 has already broken the system and created new living and working conditions. Conflict theory may explain the differences in care delivery and resource access, but it deals with social inequality by differentiating people according to their race, gender, or income. Thus, symbolic interactionalists believe that each social phenomenon affects people’s roles and interactions, leading to specific results. In the COVID-19 context, this perspective works properly because society is defined as an ongoing process, and the current state of affairs defines how people recognize and understand threats.
The pandemic is an interesting topic for modern sociologists because it makes them think about why changes occur and what can be done not to promote the worst-case scenario. Recent events have shown that healthcare systems are not perfect, even if the best attempts are made, and the most professional experts are involved. All policies and systems have been created by humans, and the way how they comprehend the situation defines their next steps. Symbolic interactionism proves that social interactions depend on specific situations. Thus, some people treated the pandemic seriously, accepted the idea of vaccination, and chose social isolation as the best way to avoid the virus, while some individuals preferred not to recognize the risks. Although symbolic interactionists do not consider every individual, this theory still focuses on people rather than the structure or a system. COVID-19 is a serious public health issue, but personal attitudes and contributions play a crucial role in finding a solution.
Reference
Macionis, J. J. (2003). Society: The basics (7th ed.). Pearson Education.