Sociological Theory

Sociologists develop theories to explain social phenomena. A theory is a proposed relationship between two or more concepts. In other words, a theory is explanation for why or how a phenomenon occurs. An example of a sociological theory is the work of Robert Putnam on the decline of civic engagement. Putnam found that Americans involvement in civic life (e.g., community organizations, clubs, voting, religious participation, etc.) has declined over the last 40 to 60 years. While there are a number of factors that contribute to this decline (Putnam’s theory is quite complex), one of the prominent factors is the increased consumption of television as a form entertainment. Putnam’s theory proposes: The more television people watch, the lower their involvement in civic life will be. This element of Putnam’s theory clearly illustrates the basic purpose of sociological theory: it proposes a relationship between two or more concepts. In this case, the concepts are civic engagement and television watching. The relationship is an inverse one — as one goes up, the other goes down. What’s more, it is an explanation of one phenomenon with another: part of the reason why civic engagement has declined over the last several decades is because people are watching more television. In short, Putnam’s theory clearly encapsulates the key ideas of a sociological theory.

Sociological theory is developed at multiple levels, ranging from grand theory to highly contextualized and specific micro-range theories. There are many middle-range and micro-range theories in sociology. Because such theories are dependent on context and specific to certain situations, it is beyond the scope of this text to explore each of those theories. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce some of the more well-known and most commonly used grand and middle-range theories in sociology.

Importance of Theory

In the theory proposed above, the astute reader will notice that the theory includes two components: The data, in this case the findings that civic engagement has declined and TV watching has increased, and the proposed relationship, that the increase in television viewing has contributed to the decline in civic engagement. Data alone are not particularly informative. If Putnam had not proposed a relationship between the two elements of social life, we may not have realized that television viewing does, in fact, reduce people’s desire to and time for participating in civic life. In order to understand the social world around us, it is necessary to employ theory to draw the connections between seemingly disparate concepts.

Another example of sociological theorizing illustrates this point. In his now classic work, Suicide, Emile Durkheim was interested in explaining a social phenomenon, suicide, and employed both data and theory to offer an explanation. By aggregating data for large groups of people in Europe, Durkheim was able to discern patterns in suicide rates and connect those patterns with another concept (or variable): religious affiliation. Durkheim found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than were Catholics. At this point, Durkheim’s analysis was still in the data stage; he had not proposed an explanation for the different suicide rates of the two groups. It was when Durkheim introduced the ideas of anomie and social solidarity that he began to explain the difference in suicide rates. Durkheim argued that the looser social ties found in Protestant religions lead to weaker social cohesion and reduced social solidarity. The higher suicide rates were the result of weakening social bonds among Protestants. While Durkheim’s findings have since been criticized, his study is a classic example of the use of theory to explain the relationship between two concepts. Durkheim’s work also illustrates the importance of theory: without theories to explain the relationship between concepts, we would not be able to hypothesize cause and effect relationships in social life or outline processes whereby social events and patterns occur. And to propose cause and effect relationships and / or outline processes in social experience are the major components of sociological theory.

Types of Sociological Theory

Every sociologist has its own classification but most of them are agreed on the following various types of sociological theory.

• Formal & Informal Theories: Formal theories are based on structured and organized set of assumptions derived through systematic scientific methods, open for verification. Informal theories are unstructured, based on individual personal thinking, without strict logic or scientific methods.
• Descriptive & Explanatory Theories: Descriptive theories answer what, how, where. Explanatory theories are clear, specific and logical; they explain through cause‑effect relationships.
• Ideological & Scientific Theories: Ideological theories are biased, serving a particular ideology. Scientific theories are empirically testable, objective, neutral, based on scientific observation.
• Intuitive & Objective Theories: Intuitive theories rest on personal experience and cannot be easily replicated. Objective theories maintain neutrality, exclude personal feelings, and are experimental.
• Inductive & Deductive Theories: Inductive move from particular to general (based on observation). Deductive move from general to particular (based on classical logic).
• Microscopic & Macroscopic Theories: Microscopic focus on small groups, roles, minutiae. Macroscopic cover whole societies, global generalizations.
• Structural Functional & Conflict Theories: Structural functional theories emphasize order, integration, equilibrium. Conflict theories stress opposition, tension, and normative problems.

We conclude from the above discussion that every type of sociological theory is workable in a given time and place. All types of social theories are very important for the structure and function of a social system.

Functionalism is a sociological theory that attempts to explain why society functions the way it does by focusing on the relationships between the various social institutions that make up society (e.g., government, law, education, religion, etc). The structural-functional approach is a perspective in sociology that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. It asserts that our lives are guided by social structures, which are relatively stable patterns of social behavior. Social structures give shape to our lives – for example, in families, the community, and through religious organizations. And certain rituals, such as a handshake or complex religious ceremonies, give structure to our everyday lives. Each social structure has social functions, or consequences for the operation of society as a whole. Education, for example, has several important functions in a society, such as socialization, learning, and social placement.

Thus, one of the key ideas in Structural Functionalism is that society is made-up of groups or institutions, which are cohesive, share common norms, and have a definitive culture. Robert K. Merton argued that functionalism is about the more static or concrete aspects of society, institutions like government or religions. However, any group large enough to be a social institution is included in Structural Functionalist thinking, from religious denominations to sports clubs and everything in between. Structural Functionalism asserts that the way society is organized is the most natural and efficient way for it to be organized.

Gender inequality offers a good illustration. According to Structural Functionalist thought, women being subordinate to men allows the cogs of society to function smoothly as everyone in the society knows his or her respective position in the hierarchy. The implication, of course, is that, because society is functioning smoothly with gender stratification, such stratification is acceptable and efforts should not be made to change the arrangement. This example illustrates that Structural Functionalism is generally seen as being supportive of the status quo.

Another key characteristic of Structural Functionalism is that it views society as constantly striving to be at a state of equilibrium, which suggests there is an inherent drive within human societies to cohere or stick together. This is known as the cohesion issue. Societies strive toward equilibrium, not through dictatorial mandate by the leaders of society but rather because the social structure of societies encourages equilibrium. For example, Jim Crow laws in the southern United States were a formalized version of informal structural advantages that empowered whites. Because of the history of slavery in the southern United States, whites had amassed more wealth than blacks. During slavery, whites controlled the government and all of the major institutions in the South. After slavery ended, whites continued to control many of these institutions, but because they were outnumbered in some areas by blacks, threatening their dominance, they instituted formal laws, Jim Crow laws, that allowed them to maintain their structural advantages. And whites were able to pass these laws because they already controlled many of the social institutions instrumental in the passage of laws (e.g., courts, government, businesses, etc.). Thus, the advantages whites had prior to a change in society allowed them to maintain their advantages after the change through both informal and formal means because of the structure of society. Structural Functionalism does much to explain why certain aspects of society continue as they always have, despite some phenomena being clearly less beneficial for society as a whole (e.g., Jim Crow laws). However, Structural Functionalism falls short in explaining opposition to social institutions and social structure by those being oppressed.

Organismic analogy by Herbert Spencer

It is said that Spencer undertook to create what Comte envisaged to do. It means he made sociology an all encompassing Science. Spencer was a self-thought man and hence his learning was highly selective. According to Herbert Spencer, Society is not merely a collection of individuals; it is more than that; just as an organism is more than a mere collection of cells. He established the hypothesis that society is like a biological organism and then proceeded to defend it against all objections with great logical force. The Organic analogy which is a staple of ancient and medieval thought was reformulated by Spencer. He regarded the recognition of the similarity between society and organism as the first step towards a general theory of evolution. The same definition of life applies to both biological and social organism.

“Only when one sees that the transformation passed through during the growth, maturity and decay of a society, conforms to the same principles as do the transformations passed through by aggregates of all orders, in-organic, organic is there reached the concept of sociology as a science.” Spencer maintains that we can understand society best, if we compare it with an organism. He thinks that society is like a biological system, a greater organism, alike in its structure and its functions. Like an organism society is subject to the same process of gradual growth or development from a simple to complex state. Like any organism, society also exhibits “differentiation in functions and integration structure.” In this connection, it must be noted that Spencer does not subscribe to the view that society is an organism; he maintains it only as an analogy.

Talcott Parsons has suffered from his success. He was the chief exponent of the US-style structural-functionalism that has come closest yet to constituting a Kuhnian dominant paradigm for sociology. His The Social System was the text through the 1950s and ‘60s. The rejection of his work since has in my view been overdone: to fly high is to risk falling fast. Who reads Parsons now? As with most theorists, Parsons’ work evolved, his early work merely sowing the seeds for later displays. From the outset Parsons opposed positivist social science, primarily because it failed to recognize the purposeful nature of human action. He sought an approach that acknowledged that people are both ‘goal-oriented’ and ‘constrained’. The notion of social system became central to his thought.

A social system denotes a durable organization of interaction between ‘actors’ and ‘contexts’; its reach extends from micro-systems to macro-level systems like the nation-state. Social systems are structured, Parsons maintained, by ‘value patterns’ without which actors’ behaviour would be directionless. Value patterns are structured by ‘pattern variables’ – universal dichotomies underlying social interaction: universalism versus particularism; performance versus quality; specificity versus diffuseness; affective neutrality versus affectivity. Parsons argued that modern society has seen a general shift in favour of universalism, performance, specificity and affective neutrality.

Social systems are also characterized by ‘functional prerequisities’. If the notion of pattern variables addresses the voluntaristic dimension, functional prerequisities refer to the extent to which people’s relations are embedded in social subsystems. Social systems can only exist if four functional prerequisities are satisfied:

• Adaptation (A): to the external or natural environment.
• Goal-attainment (G): mobilization of resources to meet ends.
• Integration (I): regulation and coordination for coherence.
• Latency (L) / pattern maintenance: means to sustain motivational energy.

This is Parsons’ AGIL scheme. Social systems that develop institutions capable of performing all four AGIL functions enjoy an evolutionary advantage. In modernity, the macro-level social system can be divided into four subsystems: the economic subsystem (adaptation), political subsystem (goal-attainment), social community subsystem (integration), cultural subsystem (latency). Furthermore, the AGIL scheme and pattern variables interrelate: e.g., the economy (adaptation) is characterized by universalism, performance, specificity, affective neutrality; while social community (integration) is characterized by particularism, quality, diffuseness, affectivity.

Parsons also introduces differentiation, adaptive upgrading, inclusion, and value generalization to explain evolution to modernity. His framework can be illustrated in fields like professions, health, and sport. For example, the role of the physician reflects universalism, performance, specificity, affective neutrality — functional for the doctor‑patient relationship. He also developed the ‘sick role’ concept, where illness is a form of deviance that must be managed to maintain system equilibrium.

AGIL and Pakistani society

Applying the AGIL scheme to Pakistan’s progress and development, we can observe each functional prerequisite. The economic subsystem (adaptation) involves agriculture, industry, services, and attempts to adapt to global market demands. Goal-attainment (political subsystem) is reflected in state institutions, policy-making, and efforts to mobilize resources for development, albeit with instability. Integration (social community) concerns ethnic, linguistic, and religious cohesion — a challenging area where civil society and legal frameworks strive for harmony. Latency (cultural subsystem) includes value patterns, religious norms, and family systems that maintain motivational and cultural patterns. Pakistan’s development trajectory involves tensions between universalistic (modernizing) and particularistic (traditional) orientations, performance‑based vs. ascriptive status, and the struggle for institutional equilibrium — issues Parsons’ scheme helps illuminate. However, systemic constraints like elite capture and weak institutional integration often hinder adaptive upgrading and inclusion, echoing Parsons’ concern with evolutionary advantage.

Robert King Merton (July 4, 1910 – February 23, 2003) was a distinguished American sociologist, who spent most of his career teaching at Columbia University. He coined several phrases that entered into common parlance, including “self-fulfilling prophecy” and “unintended consequences.” His work included development of the concept of anomie, derived from Emile Durkheim. Merton, however, focused on the discontinuity between cultural goals and the legitimate means available for reaching them. Applied to the United States, he saw the American dream as an emphasis on the goal of monetary success but without the corresponding emphasis on the legitimate avenues to achieve this goal. Merton recognized that this imbalance leads to “strain,” which in turn may generate deviant, even criminal behavior. His theories have been applied in the area of criminology, to understand causes of criminal behavior, and in the development of government programs, such as affirmative action, that seek to redress the balance between society’s goals and the means by which all members of the society can achieve them. Through his research into the dysfunctions in society, Merton’s goal was to contribute to the betterment of human society and improvement in the lives of all its members.

Merton (1938) concluded that Americans were socialised into believing in the American Dream; that a consensus existed about what people’s social goals should be: success and material wealth. However, equal access to those goals did not exist: there was a strain between the socially-encouraged goals of society and the socially-acceptable means to achieve them. People were socialised into believing that to achieve the American Dream they had to work hard and they would succeed because the society was a meritocracy. Individuals made various adaptations in response to this strain, some of which were likely to lead to crime. The different adaptations were based on either accepting or rejecting the means and/or the goals: so while some people will conform, work hard and try to achieve success despite the difficulties, others will adapt. The clearest adaptation that might lead to criminal activity is that of the innovator: they still want the material success, but they don’t want to work hard at school so they find another route to their ends. While this might mean appearing on X Factor, it could also be robbing a bank. Either could lead to a criminal record. Some might reject both the means and the goal, and drop out of society altogether. These are the retreatists, and Merton thought they might commit crimes such as illegal drug use. The other adaptation that might lead to criminal behaviour is rebellion: some people might want to replace the means and the goals with new ones and this could, in some cases, lead to illegal protest or political violence.

Evaluating Merton

While Durkheim’s concept of anomie was rather vague, Merton explains the idea in quite a detailed way: as the product of a strain between socially-accepted goals and the socially-accepted means to achieve them. While Merton’s theory was based on 20th century America, it is transferable to any contemporary, western, developed capitalist society. Merton does not consider the source of social goals, nor in whose interests society is socialised into believing. Marxists would argue that the former is bourgeois ideology; that the latter is in the interests of capitalism. Everyone wants money to purchase consumer goods; they’re also socialised into believing the best way to achieve that goal is to work extra hard for their bosses. This is not a value consensus ensuring social solidarity, of the sort that functionalists describe, but rather capitalist ideology or hegemony, serving the interests of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat. Nor does Merton spend any time considering why some people find it harder to achieve society’s goals than others. He does not pursue the idea that inequality and unequal opportunities in society are a social problem, nor what the cause of that problem might be. Similarly, Merton does not consider why different people have different adaptations. While many people feel that the socially-accepted means to achieve their goals are too difficult, only a small number of them go on to commit crimes. Why? What makes the majority law-abiding most of the time? Are there sociological explanations for some people choosing to innovate while others retreat? Merton does not provide us with answers to those questions. Continuing from the previous point, Merton does not explain why groups of people are deviant in the same way. As previously mentioned, most people conform most of the time, but those who don’t often socialise together (e.g. gangs). Merton does not address this, but it is taken up by functionalist subcultural theorists who have developed Merton’s theory. Finally Merton presents a possible explanation for some crime; but what about non-utilitarian crime (crime from which the criminal does not materially benefit)? Although Merton suggests an explanation for some non-utilitarian crime (like drug abuse), there is nothing in his theory that would explain fighting or vandalism. While not being able to achieve the American Dream might encourage someone to rob a bank, there is no apparent reason why it would lead to someone to draw graffiti on a bridge or to beat someone up.