Conflict Theory And Symbolic Interactionism

Conflict Theory and Symbolic Interactionism

Sociological theory has made immense progress over the past century. Theorists today are greatly influenced by the theorists of the past and use their ideas as a foundation on which they build and develop new ideas and theories that advance the field of Sociology. Overtime the theories of early sociologist lose their validity and can become outdated, simply because of the societal advances that have occurred. Contemporary social theory has taken the classical theories and adapted them to the fast paced, technologically advanced modern world.

Conflict Theory

Developed as an alternative to structural functionalism, conflict theory was influenced by Marxian theory, but still maintained many of the

Dahrendorf concluded that, “every society at every point is subject to processes of change.” (Ritzer, 2011 p. 265) The inevitable changes in society are caused by conflict and friction. Societal conflicts are in turn caused by those who hold power in society being unable to influence the behavior and ideas of those who do not hold the same amount of power. Dahrendorf saw the distribution of power as the “determining factor of systematic social conflicts.” (Ritzer, 2011 p. 266) He suggested that power and authority are not associated with individuals, but rather positions and their statuses. Positions that have authority come with expectations of behavior both from those above and below that position. Dahrendorf identified three types of groups, they are quasi groups, interest groups, and conflict groups. Ritzer states that, “… when recruitment to quasi

While I am often aware of the irrationality of the thoughts and worries that I have, I am often unable to separate myself from the emotional responses that accompany them. When faced with anxiety inducing situations, “the act” can be broken down into Meads four stages. The impulse is one of panic, a feeling that I will not be able to handle the situation, I often lose the ability to think clearly, and jump to worse case scenarios. Next is perception, how can I remove myself from the anxious situation. I look for the door or try not to draw attention to myself. Then comes manipulation, is leaving a viable option, will I be able to hide in plain sight, here I determine my best course of action. Finally, comes consummation, I remove myself from the situation rather that confronting it head on, and having it be much less horrible than I expected it to be. My anxiety doesn’t allow me to accept the fact that these situations are not going to determine the outcome of my life and most are of little consequence. The looking-glass self is also a factor in my mentality. If I have developed and fed into a warped idea of how others see and judge me, I know that my response to them will be warped and inconsistent as well. Having this understanding of myself is helpful, but not always