Theories of society

The kinds of theories were interested in for understanding schools are those that attempt to explain why
societies have the features they do. Im going to describe three kinds of theories of society, three general
ways to make sense of the world around us. When someone tells a story about why things are the way
they are, that story will usually fit into one or another of these three categories.
Functionalism
Functionalist theories assume the different parts of a society each have their own role to play (their own
"function"), and work together smoothly in order to form a harmonious whole. The metaphor often used to
describe functionalism is that it views society as a body, with the different parts of societygovernment,
media, religion, the family, etc., and, of course, schoolsbeing like the different organs in a body, each
contributing in a different way to keeping the entire body healthy.
Functionalism assumes that the various institutions of a society always operate so as to support that
society as it is. If they didnt, the society would perish; therefore, functionalism believes, its safe to
assume that they do in any society one may encounter, for otherwise the society would no longer be here
for us to study.
The early sociologist Emile Durkheim is often associated with functionalism. You may recall that in our
first class meeting, during the discussion of the purpose of education, I mentioned that Durkheim had said
the purpose of education is not the same across all societies, but that its purpose in any given society will
instead be whatever it needs to be in order to maintain that society. Thats clearly a functionalist
sentiment.
Liberal/Enlightenment theory
A second general perspective is sometimes called Liberal theory or Enlightenment theory. Its important to
distinguish the term "liberal" as used here from the way its used in everyday language to describe where
someone resides on the left-right political spectrum (i.e., to mean the opposite of "conservative"). Here it
refers to "classical" liberalismliberal political theory as expressed by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, the American founding fathers, etc. (The closest equivalent on the
contemporary scene would probably be the libertarians.) Liberal and Enlightenment thinkers emphasize
freedom of the individual (same root as "liberate"), the priority of reason over religious or hereditary
authority, and social progress. Free individuals, they believe, guided by their powers of rational thought,
will, over time, accumulate greater knowledge and wisdom, and form societies that inevitably become
more prosperous, humane, and egalitarian. The future will be better than the past.
If any one perspective can be said to form the basis of whats considered "common sense" in American
culture, its this one. That does not necessarily mean, however, that it is an accurate description of
American society. Liberal/Enlightenment thinking has a hard time explaining some of the less savory
aspects of our history. The spread of justice and equality has not been steady, enjoyed equally by all
residents of the nation, or automatic. It has involveddespite the popular mythologysetbacks,
advances for some that came at the expense of others, and considerable struggle among competing
factions. Which brings us to...
Conflict theory
In contrast to the consensus orientation of the other two perspectives, conflict theories view society as
composed of distinct groups with opposing interests, and view social change as resulting from struggle
among those groups. Different varieties of conflict theory recognize different kinds of divisions, but all
view society as fundamentally characterized by conflict rather than consensus. Marxist conflict theorists
see society as divided into classes, with owners and workers having opposing interests; feminist conflict
theorists see society as divided by gender, with women generally being less privileged than men; antiracist conflict theorists emphasize conflict across racial lines; anti-imperialist conflict theorists emphasize
global conflict between wealthy and poor nations; etc.
From the perspective of a conflict theorist, functionalism and Liberal/Enlightenment theory both attempt to
sweep social divisions under the rug. A conflict theorist would say that by claiming existing social
arrangements work to everyones benefit (functionalism), or current deficiencies will diminish

automatically over time as we grow more enlightened (Liberal/Enlightenment), the other two perspectives
obscure the power imbalances between groups within the society and discourage the oppressed from
recognizing their relative disadvantage and doing something about it. In short, from this perspective,
rather than helping clarify how society works, the other two function as ideologies that cloud the minds of
the less powerful, inducing them to accept society as it exists.
Comparison
As illustrated in the chart below, functionalism and Liberal/Enlightenment theory share an assumption of
consensus, an assumption that all members of a society have common interests and generally concur
with the direction the society takes, whereas conflict theory assumes the opposite, that various groups
have conflicting interests and that historical developments are determined by that conflict.
Meanwhile, theres also something that Liberal/Enlightenment theory and conflict theory share: both find it
easier to explain social change, when it occurs, than social stability. Liberal/Enlightenment theory asserts
that progress and general improvement is the natural state of society, and in conflict theory the dynamism
of ongoing conflict provides the impetus for change. But neither does very well at explaining stability, at
explaining why things dont change any more than they do, why social features last to the extent they do.
Functionalism, on the other hand, does well at explaining continuity, assuming, as it does, that stability is
the natural state of society. What it has trouble with is explaining change, why anything ever changes at
all.

Theory of Culture
Culture theory is the branch of comparative anthropology and semiotics (not to be confused with cultural
sociology or cultural studies) that seeks to define the heuristic concept of culture in operational and/or
scientific terms.
In the 19th century, "culture" was used by some to refer to a wide array of human activities, and by others
as a synonym for "civilization". In the 20th century, anthropologists began theorizing about culture as an
object of scientific analysis. Some used it to distinguish human adaptive strategies from the largely
instinctive adaptive strategies of animals, including the adaptive strategies of other primates and nonhuman hominids, whereas others used it to refer to symbolic representations and expressions of human
experience, with no direct adaptive value. Both groups understood culture as being definitive of human
nature.
According to many theories that have gained wide acceptance among anthropologists, culture exhibits the
way that humans interpret their biology and their environment. According to this point of view, culture
becomes such an integral part of human existence that it is the human environment, and most cultural
change can be attributed to human adaptation to historical events. Moreover, given that culture is seen as
the primary adaptive mechanism of humans and takes place much faster than human biological evolution,
most cultural change can be viewed as culture adapting to itself.
Although most anthropologists try to define culture in such a way that it separates human beings from
other animals, many human traits are similar to those of other animals, particularly the traits of other
primates. For example, chimpanzees have big brains, but human brains are bigger. Similarly, bonobos
exhibit complex sexual behaviour, but human beings exhibit much more complex sexual behaviours. As
such, anthropologists often debate whether human behaviour is different from animal behaviour in degree
rather than in kind; they must also find ways to distinguish cultural behaviour from sociological behaviour
and psychological behavior.
Acceleration and amplification of these various aspects of culture change have been explored by
complexity economist, W. Brian Arthur. In his book, The Nature of Technology, Arthur attempts to
articulate a theory of change that considers that existing technologies (or material culture) are combined
in unique ways that lead to novel new technologies. Behind that novel combination is a purposeful effort
arising in human motivation. This articulation would suggest that we are just beginning to understand

what might be required for a more robust theory of culture and culture change, one that brings coherence
across many disciplines and reflects an integrating elegance.
What is Society?
A human society is a group of people involved in persistent interpersonal relationships, or a large social
grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority
and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social
relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be
described as the sum total of such relationships among its constituent members. In the social sciences, a
larger society often evinces stratification or dominance patterns in subgroups.
Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not otherwise
be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can thus be
distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap.
A society can also consist of like-minded people governed by their own norms and values within a
dominant, larger society. This is sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used extensively within
criminology.
More broadly, and especially within structuralist thought, a society may be illustrated as an economic,
social, industrial or cultural infrastructure, made up of, yet distinct from, a varied collection of individuals.
In this regard society can mean the objective relationships people have with the material world and with
other people, rather than "other people" beyond the individual and their familiar social environment.
What is Culture?
Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from
language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.
The Center for Advance Research on Language Acquisition goes a step further, defining culture as
shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs and understanding that are learned by
socialization. Thus, it can be seen as the growth of a group identity fostered by social patterns unique to
the group.
The word "culture" derives from a French term, which in turn derives from the Latin "colere," which means
to tend to the earth and grow, or cultivation and nurture. "It shares its etymology with a number of other
words related to actively fostering growth," Cristina De Rossi, an anthropologist at Barnet and Southgate
College in London, told Live Science.
Many countries are largely populated by immigrants, and the culture is influenced by the many groups of
people that now make up the country. This is also a part of growth. As the countries grow, so does its
cultural diversity.