Sociological Theories Related to Law

Sociological Theories Related to Law (Mead, Durkheim, and Marx) – By Dr. Michael Beshears

In the study of sociology pertaining to law, there are three primary theoretical perspectives i.e.,

• —> symbolic interactionist perspective
• —> functionalist perspective
• —> conflict perspective

These perspectives offer sociologists theoretical paradigms for explaining how society influences people, and vice versa. Each perspective uniquely conceptualized society, social forces, and human behavior.

symbolic interactionist perspective aka, —> symbolic interactionism

Per, the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols.

Symbolic Interactionism – George Herbert Mead believed that symbols were the basis of individual identity and social life.

In his opinion, individuals can acquire identity only through interacting with others. By doing this, we learn the language of our social lives. Since Mead regarded symbols as the foundation of both personal and social life, the theory he developed is called Symbolic Interactionism. Although Mead died before naming his theory, Herbert Blumer, a student of his, came up with the name. Blumer stated that Mead’s theory consisted of three key concepts:

—-> meaning, language, and thought

1. Meaning: The Construction of Social Meaning. Humans naturally assign meaning to people and things. With these meanings assigned, individuals act accordingly.
2. Language: The Source of Meaning. Meaning emerges from social interaction and the language used. Meanings come from people, not objects.
3. Thought: Taking the Role of the Other. One’s own thought process is used to develop his or her own interpretation of symbols. In addition, the process of “role-taking” shapes, one’s understanding of other individuals and ultimately themselves.

Mead based symbolic interactionism on how humans identify symbols. As infants grow, they start interacting with others and acquire their own mind and self. They mirror others’ behaviors and develop unique ways to communicate symbolically with increasing interactions.

functionalist perspective aka —> functionalism

Emile Durkheim – (1858-1917) asked a simple set of questions:

• —> What holds society together?
• —> Why are people willing to form and abide by social relationships?
• —> What processes function to sustain social order?

Per, the functionalist perspective, each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society’s functioning.

The government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity.

Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in which members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society.

Emile Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms:

• Mechanical solidarity
• Organic solidarity

Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society maintain similar values and beliefs and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity most commonly occurs in traditional, simple societies such as those in which everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society exemplifies mechanical solidarity.

In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when the people in a society are interdependent but holds to varying values and beliefs and engages in varying types of work. Organic solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized, complex societies such as those in large American cities like New York in the 2000s.

Still, Durkheim recognized that societies move from simple to more complex forms. Ideas, or the “collective conscience,” have less power in more complex forms. They become more general and abstract and can no longer regulate human affairs in detail. Social relations become based increasingly on exchanges of mutual interest and benefits. People work for pay rather than out of moral duty to society. Such social relations often cause conflict and disorder, however. A lack of consensus over ideas can create a state of deregulation and can cause problems for the maintenance of social relations.

Durkheim’s insights seem simple, but they had far-reaching implications for sociology:

• Social order is governed by symbols-ideas, values, beliefs, and norms.
• These symbols can become a part of people, a part of their personalities – that is, of their needs, desires, or perceptions.
• Social order is thus maintained by ideas’ becoming an aspect of people’s personalities, ruling them from within.
• Complex social relationships are also governed by negotiations between parties.
• Problems of order in complex societies increase because of the power of symbols lessens and is replaced by exchanges of goods and services among people.

conflict perspective

—> Karl Marx (1818-1883)

• The conflict perspective originated primarily out of Karl Marx’s writings on class struggles, presenting society in a different light than do the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives.

conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever-changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak.

Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective in favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable interest in conflict theory.

They also expanded Marx’s idea that the key conflict in society was strictly economic.

Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever-changing nature of society.

Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in preserving society and social order.

Marx, an advocate of revolution inspired modern conflict theory.

Seeing the misery of workers and peasants in early industrial Europe, he devoted his life to crusading for a revolution that he believed would better their lives. In advocating this revolution, Marx achieved some enduring insights into society.

Marx saw society as held together not so much by consensus over ideas as by power. Those with power could force and manipulate others to do their bidding. Power came from property ownership, from owning the means of production on which the economic system and people’s survival depends. Those who possess the land in agricultural societies have power, those who own factories in industrial societies have power, and this power is immense. Owners coerce, they manipulate ideas, and they convince people that exploitation is in people’s best interests.

Marx emphasized that societies reveal natural sources of conflict and tension. Order and stability are always subject to countervailing forces of disorder and change. The unequal distribution of power makes this conflict inevitable. Each type of economic system-slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, as examples-reveals a different set of power relationships between those who own property and those who do not. But in each type, those without power seek to gain it, and once they have power, others attempt to take it from them.

About the Author: Michael L. Beshears, Husband, Dad, Grandpa – Ret. Army MSG – Ph.D. – LPN – CHPD- Published Author – Univ. Professor – Judoka. Dr. Beshears has three graduate degrees, one in criminology from Indiana State University and another in health services management from Webster University. Plus, an additional 18 graduate hours in public administration. Doctorate degree in business with a specialization in criminal justice from Northcentral University.