In order for us to comprehend why sociological theories could be categorized into consensus and conflict perspectives. Why don't we first go through the definitions of the two ideas of consensus and turmoil. Consensus is a thought of society in which the absence of turmoil sometimes appears as the equilibrium talk about of society predicated on an over-all or widespread contract among all users of a specific society. Discord is a disagreement or clash between opposing ideas, ideas, or people-this can be a covert or overt turmoil.
Put these into point of view the consensus and discord sociological ideas are reflected in the works of certain dominant public theorists. Dominant Classical communal theorists such as Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Utmost Weber. Along with other prominent sociable theorists such as Talcott Parsons & Robert Merton, Louis Althusser & Ralph Dahrendorf and Herbert Mead & Herbert Blumer. It's important to notice that the discord and consensus perspectives of sociological theories have been split into four categories or four paradigms-frame of research in which people start to see the world. These are Radical Humanism & Radical Structuralism which installed under conflict theory, Interpretive Sociology & (Structural) Functionalism/Systems Research which are categorized under the consensus point of view. Each of the traditional and modern social theorists (and their theories) above are slotted into one of the four categories or paradigms.
Well, first let us look at Karl Marx and Issue theory; there are two interpretations or paradigms of Marx's theory of discord, Radical Humanism & Radical Structuralism.
The works of Marx in his early years was interpreted by some interpersonal theorists as emphasizing the role of human beings in social discord. They discussed change as appearing from the problems between human beings and their population. They argued that Marx's theory was a theory characterised by school issues or the discord between your bourgeoisie (rich, owners) and the proletariat (poor, workers). What these folks or Radical Humanists are stressing is the real human being's capacity to think and work against situations that are not satisfactory to their existence: political, monetary or sociable situation unsatisfactory to them, therefore, they desire for a radical change-force and have difficulties against all human being impediments-to happen.
According to the Marxist interpretation, change will only come about through issue between two classes of individuals. This is in result of the suppression and domination by one dominant class of people over another weaker category, social turmoil will emerge and change will need place. For instance, the change from simple/primitive to slavery to feudalist to capitalist and also to socialist societies is seen as a conflict. For example, the French trend, whereby the bourgeoisie overthrew the feudal system-which noticed the ousting of the Monarchs-and gave rise to a capitalist French population. According to some other group of social theorists pioneered by Louis Althusser argued that Karl Marx's theoretical exposition in his later years was stressing the role of sociable structures /organizations incompatible. Althusser suggested a structuralist reading of Marxism. For him, modern culture consisted in a hierarchy of constructions distinct from one another, each using its relative autonomy. In other words Althusser was offering an anti-humanist reading of Marx's work. Thus, according to the structuralists, discord is naturally widespread within social structures/institutions in population. With time interpersonal turmoil will emerge. That is, issue will emerge by itself because of the incompatible relationship between the rules and regulations of social constructions/institutions. Therefore, change should come. Relating to Althusser, he turned down any idea of human engagement in instigating public conflict. But found People as just products of these structural conflicts or the inherent internal differences covered within the public constructions/institutions. Now why don't we take for example the recent socio-political turmoil (1998-2000) between your two ethnic categories, Guadalcanal and Malaita, in Solomon Islands from both humanist & structuralist Marxist description. For the humanist Marxist-a possible explanation of the conflict-the conflict was due to the Guadalcanal people's frustrations because of what they perceived as domination by Malaitans over them. That's in conditions of land issues, land and resources acquisition, disrespect for the indigenous people, their land and their customs [Kabutaulaka, 14th April 2002:4-7].
Whereas, a straightforward structural Marxist justification would argue that this socio-political discord was dependant on the existing buildings/institutions of social and political mother nature. One potential illustration of structural Marxists would be branded on the relationship between the created Westminster design of ruling and the fragmented traditional kinds of ruling as unlike one another. Thus, resulted in the turmoil of concepts or values inherent within both of these set ups that overtime overt turmoil emerged by itself. Now why don't we look at the traditional Consensus perspectives and the two paradigms or sociologies of interpersonal order & communal legislation; interpretive sociology (symbolic relationship) and (Structural) Functionalism/Systems evaluation. Firstly, let us think about interpretive sociology or symbolic interactionism. The foundation of this sociological description is rooted in the works of social theorists such as George Herbert Mead, Maximum Weber, Herbert Blumer and more. For Mead emphasized the natural introduction of the home and head within the communal order-within the interpersonal process of social human discussion [Baldwin, 1987:108, 112]. Weber pressured the role of humans as realtors of the interpersonal interpretation and rational understanding [Morrison, 1995:275-276]. Blumer shows this is of cultural facts for the average person actions [Jary & Jary, 2000:622-633].
Their evaluation of society is quite similar to that of Humanist Marxism (Radical Humanism) for the reason that they both emphasized the role of human beings in subjective sociable action. Interpretive sociologists or symbolic interactionists presumed that humans are planning beings and do not passively accept the rules and polices of modern culture.
They further pressured that due to human ability to believe, it provides individual interpretations of the communal or the norms and beliefs of world. These interpretations of the norms and principles in turn satisfy human beings and make sure they are act appropriately. Therefore, theoretically, it is these individual abilities to think, understand, interpret and respond meaningfully according to the collective rules and regulations of world that provides about communal order and cultural stability.
On the other side is functionalism/structural functionalism which objectively looks at modern culture from a macro perspective. Functionalism is based on the works of Emile Durkheim and further expanded by Talcott Parsons. Whereby, they likened population to biological organisms. Similar to the internal organs of a standard biological organism work together for the effective healthy (orderly) development function of the organism, so is the world which has public organs/set ups/institutions which are there to maintain public order and balance in society in order to advance [Plange, 1996:60]. Thus functionalism is similar to Structuralist Marxism (Radical Structuralism) in that they are worried with structural/institutional evaluation of modern culture. But different in terms of the emphasis. Functionalism emphasizes on communal order and interpersonal stability however, not discord. Functionalism provides that world comprises of different organizations or organizations that interact in co-operation-their orderly relationship-to maintain cultural order and interpersonal stableness. This maintenance of population is extracted from the internal rules, norms, principles and regulations of these various ordered establishments. In light of these two conservative theoretical explanations the post socio-political issue in the Solomon Islands can be assessed from an interpretive sociological explanation and a functionalist perspective. The main concentration of the post discord situation in Solomon Islands at this time is to restore legislation and order, and stableness. Well, from a Functionalist notion it might be argued that the desire to restore law and order is facilitated by certain organizations in Solomon Islands. Such as the Churches, the police, judiciary, the calmness council and the federal government through their particular functions and co-operative work. Whilst, the interpretive sociologist would react to this by stating that it's the people of Solomon Islands themselves and not the establishments who are working collectively for the recovery of laws and order. Both of these interpretations are relevant in this framework. As such, a student of sociology should never neglect these theories or conclude that a definite theory is pertinent to population than others. You can find three things of significance needed to be remembered. Firstly, is that, elements of each ideas under the consensus and conflict theories are present in society; the point is no-one particular theory can not explain society totally. Secondly, there can be an overlap of explanations between the theories. For instance, Talcott Parsons attempt to synthesis Weber's and Durkheim's work, but he tend to be Durkheimian than Weberian. Thirdly, these cultural theorists produced their theories from the works of any predecessor cultural theorist like Parsons himself, others before him and those who arrived later including critics. Therefore, as we've seen from these four paradigms it is clear why some sociological ideas can be grouped collectively as issue theories and just why other theories are believed as consensus theories. Putting it simple it is their emphasis of reason and interpretation by other communal theorists that made them so.
Bibliography Baldwin, John. D (1987) George Herbert Mead: A Unifying Theory for Sociology, California: SAGE Publications.
Jary, David and Jary, Julia (2000) Collins Dictionary of Sociology [3rd Edition, Glasgow: Harper Collins Web publishers.
Kabutaulaka, Tarcisius Tara (14th April 2002) A Weak Talk about and the Solomon Islands Peace Process In Pacific Islands Development Series, Hawaii: East Western Center.
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2002. 1993-2001 Microsoft Organization. All Protection under the law Reserved.
Morrison, Ken (1995) Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Community Thought, London: SAGE Publications.
Plange, Nii. K (1996) The Science of World: Discovering the Links between Technology, Ideology and Theories of Development, Suva: Fiji Institute of Applied Studies in Association with the Division of Sociology, School of the South Pacific
