Theory of Explaining the Culture Essay

The formation and development of culture within a society is defined by various sociological theorists differently. Some consider language and routine interactions the basis of culture, some consider smaller groups and its functions more important than routine interactions, and others emphasize the role of dominant ideology imposed by those powerful and influential in a society.

Symbolic Interactionism

The first theory of explaining the culture is based on importance of symbols and language. The theory of Symbolic Interactionism owes much of its theoretical grounding to the works of George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). Mead was a philosopher teaching at the University of Chicago and he has an influential contribution in the sociological theory. He considered minor details in human social life more important than the society as a whole. This area of sociology later came to be called Microsociology, the study of common routine behavior in face-to-face interactions.

Mead emphasized the importance of role of language and its forms in the human social structure and shaping of culture. This very vitality forms the basis of Symbolic Interactionism. Language is the most important foundation of a culture. Language includes speech, symbols, gestures, written characters and numbers and also pictures. These symbols acquire the vital nurturing part in human life. Human tend to attach symbols to each and everything they can think of. That is what forms the basis of human interaction in a society. Humans develop certain symbols for different behavior patterns. While meeting others, they can judge others’ feelings without hearing anything. They always look for what is appropriate behavior in a certain situation and how they are expected to behave. This process is extremely complex and passive, as one does not interact in symbols consciously. Mead gave the idea of “Social Self” and the “Personal Self”. The former is the image of us as that others see it. This self-conscious being develops due to a rich symbolic environment in which humans live.

The theory has been further analyzed and refined by some sociologists. One of them, for example, is Erving Goffman who introduced various aspects of interaction into the study. Face, gestures, emotions and body language as a whole were studied in depth that formed the basis of Microsociology.

Functionalism

Functionalist approach looks at the society at a relatively macro level. Functionalism rests on the ideas of Durkheim and Comte. According to functionalist approach, one should look at the institutions within society who are interlinked and function on collective level to form a culture. Family, bureaucracy and politics are examples of some vital parts within society. This approach is often drawn with an analogy to the human body. To understand the function of heart, for example, this is imperative to study its relation to other parts of the body. Parallel to that, any ‘part’ or institution of the society is studied to analyze what role it plays in keeping the society intact and forming a culture. Functionalists like Durkheim also stressed the importance of norms and religion in keeping alive the core social values in a society, and thereby keeping the social integration (Giddens 561). Norms are those standards of behavior that are significant and widely accepted in a society. Norms, values and religion are considered by functionalists as the most important in shaping a culture. Norms are subject to change and development over time. They are subdivided as those formally coded, informal, those considered highly important for welfare of society like religion and folklore, the everyday life values.

The development of functionalism in study owes much to anthropologists. In twentieth century many anthropologists stressed on notion that any society should be analyzed and studied as a whole after determining the inter relation between its various functionaries. Religion, for example, cannot be analyzed from a distance unless it is realized how it functions to keep the society together.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists rely on importance of dominant ideology in shaping a culture. Those powerful and influential in a society, control the means of communication and making laws. They make and impose laws and values suitable to their status quo. Conflict theory has its roots primarily in the works of Karl Marx. Marx’s popular theory of society emphasizes on role of economic and class conflict in society. This conflict, primarily economic in nature, drives the society as different classes struggle for betterment. The underlying assumption is that there is an inequality among individuals and groups in any society. Those who are powerful propagate the values, religious beliefs and education to others.

Marx’s ideas about class conflict rest on the model of traditional society where the means of production are controlled by the elites or those in power. These elites own land and capital and lower classes work for them. These elites preach their own religion and values in society. These values form the basis of culture. This class difference also creates conflict of interest that may propel to a bigger struggle for change. Marx puts economics at the core of the social structure-pyramid, while for Weber its core has the generally accepted values that hold society together (functionalism). People in different classes defined by economic bell being strive to push up in the structure, but accepting the norms of culture that elites have set for them.

Sources

Giddens, Anthony. Sociology. 3^rd Ed. 1997. Blackwell Publishers. UK.

Schaefer, Richard T. Sociology. 7^th Ed.