Summary ST3
Paradigms/theoretical approaches (according to lecture 1)
- Structural functionalism (Durkheim)
- Conflict and closure theories [idk if there are more and we can put Weber
into conflict and closure theories imo]
- Rational action theory (micro-macro problem, exchange theory and
purposive action)
- Social network theories
- Neo-institutionalism
- How do they build on one another?
- Comparison of approaches in table perhaps?
Week 1A Social Action and Class, Status, Party
- How is inequality explained through social action and class, status, party
- Weber would explain inequality aka the stratification in society through the
relationship between these three: class, status, and party
- Criticism on Weber?
- Uhhhh none in the readings or lecture
- Macro and micro in Weber?
- Weber was concerned with micro-sociology and collective ideas are reduced
to individual habits and patterns
- Weber’s work is paradoxical: he says he’s committed to small-scale
processes/microsociology/agency, but his works focus on large-scale/
macro-level/structure
- Connection to other paradigms/theoretical approaches?
- Weber seen as founding father of closure theories so we will place him in
conflict and closure theories
Week 1B Inequality according to structural functionalism
- How is inequality explained through Parsons’ structural-functionalism?
- Positions have different functional importance
- Different scarcity of personnel
- These are differently rewarded
- The right people are where they are at and because of this inequality, society
can function the way it does → it’s a functional necessity
- Criticism on Parsons’ structural functionalism
- The theory extends the privileged position of people who already have power,
prestige and money
, - It assumes that such an organizational system must continue in the future;
rules out new ideas of organization of society → there is no social interaction
between individuals and society (critique by social network theories)
- The idea of functional positions varying in their importance is difficult to
support (garbage collectors might be even more important than movie stars)
- Parsons heavily criticized for his static orientation on society and thus unable
to deal with social change. Actors are passive and externally controlled (a
critique by RAT)
- There is a status quo/equilibrium that people are happy with but according to
conflict theory there will always be people that are unhappy
- Institutions can also be non- and dysfunctional (neo-institutionalism) [isn’t it
then partly also merton’s theory]
- Macro and micro
- Structural functionalism (macro) and human capital theory (micro) are allies
- Parsons more macro than Merton (week 2)
- Connection to other theories
- A strong connection to neo-classical economic theory: optimal sorting on the
basis of knowledge and skills
- Structural functionalism rose alongside modernization (e.g. Parsons’ [and
Tönnie’s] pattern variables)
- Connection to Durkheim: people internalise norms to maintain social order
Week 2A Robert K. Merton’s structural-functionalism
- Merton favoured more limited middle-range theories, Parsons liked them grand ones
- How is inequality explained through Merton’s structural-functionalism?
- While the current system may be functional for some groups, it can be
dysfunctional to another
- Merton’s 3 criticisms on functional analysis:
- Total integration of all societies is impossible.
- The same phenomenon can have multiple functions, and the same function can
be achieved with multiple phenomena.
- Functional alternatives/equivalents/substitutes exist ( → there’s no such thing
as indispensable functions or phenomena)
- Other criticisms on structural functionalism in later years
- Structural functionalism does not deal adequately with history
- Most voiced criticism is that it is unable to deal effectively with conflict
- Structural-functionalism has a conservative bias
- A tendency of structural functionalism to mistake the legitimations [employed
by elites in society] for social reality
- Macro and micro
- Merton less macro than Parsons but still a structural-functionalist, so his
theory remains macro
Paradigms/theoretical approaches (according to lecture 1)
- Structural functionalism (Durkheim)
- Conflict and closure theories [idk if there are more and we can put Weber
into conflict and closure theories imo]
- Rational action theory (micro-macro problem, exchange theory and
purposive action)
- Social network theories
- Neo-institutionalism
- How do they build on one another?
- Comparison of approaches in table perhaps?
Week 1A Social Action and Class, Status, Party
- How is inequality explained through social action and class, status, party
- Weber would explain inequality aka the stratification in society through the
relationship between these three: class, status, and party
- Criticism on Weber?
- Uhhhh none in the readings or lecture
- Macro and micro in Weber?
- Weber was concerned with micro-sociology and collective ideas are reduced
to individual habits and patterns
- Weber’s work is paradoxical: he says he’s committed to small-scale
processes/microsociology/agency, but his works focus on large-scale/
macro-level/structure
- Connection to other paradigms/theoretical approaches?
- Weber seen as founding father of closure theories so we will place him in
conflict and closure theories
Week 1B Inequality according to structural functionalism
- How is inequality explained through Parsons’ structural-functionalism?
- Positions have different functional importance
- Different scarcity of personnel
- These are differently rewarded
- The right people are where they are at and because of this inequality, society
can function the way it does → it’s a functional necessity
- Criticism on Parsons’ structural functionalism
- The theory extends the privileged position of people who already have power,
prestige and money
, - It assumes that such an organizational system must continue in the future;
rules out new ideas of organization of society → there is no social interaction
between individuals and society (critique by social network theories)
- The idea of functional positions varying in their importance is difficult to
support (garbage collectors might be even more important than movie stars)
- Parsons heavily criticized for his static orientation on society and thus unable
to deal with social change. Actors are passive and externally controlled (a
critique by RAT)
- There is a status quo/equilibrium that people are happy with but according to
conflict theory there will always be people that are unhappy
- Institutions can also be non- and dysfunctional (neo-institutionalism) [isn’t it
then partly also merton’s theory]
- Macro and micro
- Structural functionalism (macro) and human capital theory (micro) are allies
- Parsons more macro than Merton (week 2)
- Connection to other theories
- A strong connection to neo-classical economic theory: optimal sorting on the
basis of knowledge and skills
- Structural functionalism rose alongside modernization (e.g. Parsons’ [and
Tönnie’s] pattern variables)
- Connection to Durkheim: people internalise norms to maintain social order
Week 2A Robert K. Merton’s structural-functionalism
- Merton favoured more limited middle-range theories, Parsons liked them grand ones
- How is inequality explained through Merton’s structural-functionalism?
- While the current system may be functional for some groups, it can be
dysfunctional to another
- Merton’s 3 criticisms on functional analysis:
- Total integration of all societies is impossible.
- The same phenomenon can have multiple functions, and the same function can
be achieved with multiple phenomena.
- Functional alternatives/equivalents/substitutes exist ( → there’s no such thing
as indispensable functions or phenomena)
- Other criticisms on structural functionalism in later years
- Structural functionalism does not deal adequately with history
- Most voiced criticism is that it is unable to deal effectively with conflict
- Structural-functionalism has a conservative bias
- A tendency of structural functionalism to mistake the legitimations [employed
by elites in society] for social reality
- Macro and micro
- Merton less macro than Parsons but still a structural-functionalist, so his
theory remains macro
