IMPACT OF THREE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES ON POLITICAL SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Introduction

Functionalism offers a flexible perspective to political institution, interactionism offers an explanation for unconventional decisions in politics because people represent differing groups and the conflict theory provides an insight into some of the reasons behind political change.

Similarities and differences in approach to the political institutions
Functionalism differs in its approach to state related problems owing to the fact that it takes on a more pro-active stance than the other theories. Functionalism does not offer prescriptions that would solve problems in case of a crisis in politics, instead, functionalism offers the mechanisms that will ensure problems do not occur in the future. Proponents of the functionalist school of thought tend to believe that it can be possible to deal with the problems of humanity by having transnational organizations.

Conflict and internationalism acknowledge the fact that there is a need for the existence of nation states. However, this is not the same case with the functionalist school of thought. According to adherents of this theory, states need to move from being the ultimate determinants of what society can become. Instead, more focus should be on functionality as a driving force.

Interactionism differs from other schools of thought owing to the fact that there is more emphasis on the participants of political institutions. Interactionists look at society as a set of actors who must then react to one another. The latter theory looks at political institutions through a micro lens as compared to the other theory that focuses on society in whole. According to adherents of this theory, reactions and actions occur as a result of the interactions that actors within society have with one another. When one is interacting with another, they are normally driven by the need to control. Here, when one wants to control what others think of them and also what information they receive from the other party. (Thio, 2008)

The conflict theory differs from other schools of though owing to the fact that it emphasizes more on the issue of conflict between societal actors thus leading to social change. This theory is quite similar to the interactionism approach because of the fact that both theories acknowledge the importance that individuals play in transforming society. However, this theory differs from interactionism because of the fact that there is greater emphasis on society as a whole rather than on each individual as an actor.

How each theory affects the approach to social change in political institutions
Functionalism deeply affects the approach to social change owing to the fact that it opposed the creation of a one world state. This response has been echoed by the fact that many political institutions today still do not operate under international regulations. Most countries still do not believe in the notion of a world state. In other words, these nations strongly believe in sovereignty of nations claiming that a world state would undermine the overall rights or freedoms of the human populations. All the latter views are central to functionalism as a theory.

Consequently, these views have created resistance to change in the organization and restructuring of political entities. The latter are largely based on an opposition to world states. (Griffin, 1997)

Interactionism affects social change in that one can be able to understand why political representatives, structures or parties are sometimes seen as highly unconventional. This is because different actors interact in different ways to different situations. Consequently, adoption of social change can be quite rapid when society is analyzed from such an angle.

Perhaps the conflict theory is one of the most relevant theories in explaining why social change occurs in the political realm. Most of these authors assert society is characterized by the elite who tend to create systems that favor them. Whenever people act differently from those approaches, then they are labeled as deviants. People in political institutions stay in power because they have the ability to determine how society works. They are merely looking out for their own interests. This same explanation can be applied to the issue of political transition. Many societies are battling with the question of capitalism versus socialism in their political entities. This is because the underprivileged are always voicing their complaints about the ineffectiveness of their leaders and this has brought about changes in government regimes. (Goffman, 1998)

According to adherents of the conflict theory, members of the political elite have created mechanisms that ensure that they are in power. In other words, in order to hold political positions. One needs to have certain experiences and financial back up. This is only achievable when one comes from that respective group. Consequently, this is the reason why resistance to social change must occur in order to break down these institutionalized form of domination by the political class.
How each theory affects the views of individuals who are part of political institutions

Functionalism has affected the views of a number of political actors. In functionalism, there is minimal emphasis on a rigid set of rules and structures that can be used to govern people, instead, the functionalist school of thought proposes the fact that political actions should be founded on sound principles (such as equality and justice) rather than on rigid political structures. In other words, functionalists believed that the end was more important than the means. These views can be depicted among many political actors in present day. For instance, in election of political leaders, the electorate as political actors looks for representatives who represent their country’s ideals rather than the personality itself. This is the reason why more countries are electing minority groups such as ethnic minorities or women into political office. The latter category are affected by functionalist thoughts since they consider the effects that those political leaders would have on their lives.

In interactionism, it is possible for one to understand why certain political actors tend to behave the way they do, for instance, when presidential candidates or members of congress are running for office, then it is likely that most of them will be attempting to portray a positive image of themselves. They are attempting to interact with their audience through political campaigns and the essence behind political campaigns is to change the image that other people (the electorate) will have about that respective candidate. Most of the time, these candidates normally focus on making themselves appear very positively. (Lenski, 1999)

The conflict theory is highly influential in the field of politics. The first category is in terms of conflict of the genders. In the political class, most positions are held by men. Consequently, this has created a scenario in which women want to take up their rightful place but have to battle resistance from different parts of society.

The latter theory has also affected the views of individuals in political institutions in terms of class structures. Many societies tend to believe that public positions are to be held by people who belong to a certain political class. In many countries, the political class is represented by people from higher hierarchical systems. This means that other members of society have been sidelined. In order to cope with some of the inadequacies of such an approach, it has become necessary for a conflict to occur between these groups. This could explain why certain individuals have a very negative attitude towards their political institutions and why some of them opt to rebel against their respective institutions just so that they can prove their point. (Stark, 2007)

How each theory affects the views of society
The functionalism theory can be depicted in a number of situations in life. For example, when one looks at the way political parties are often changing in various countries; this can be attributed to the functionalist school of thought. One of the most well known proponents of this theory; Robert Merton claimed that there are five situations that can explain why change occurs or it does not. These were
• Conformity
• Innovation
• Ritualism
• Retreatism
• Rebellion

When an individual has been presented with certain cultural goals and they have the means and desire to achieve them, then it is likely that their will resort to conformity. This can be seen in societies where certain party systems have dominated e.g. in Sweden; social democratic parties have been part of that society ever since the mid fifties. Consequently, this could be the reason why most political actors have conformed to their structural instructions since their cultural goals gave been effectively achieved through that approach. Additionally, functionalism has affected the way people think and do things in society because of the innovative aspect of it. (Wilson, 1995)

Robert Merton explains that when an individual resorts to meeting his or her cultural goals through unacceptable methods, then that individual may be required to cope with their cultural goals through an unconventional approach i.e. through innovation. This is the reason why most political entities in societies tend to maintain their political parties but choose to redefine them in the process.
Ritualism in the functionalist school of thought has also changed the way people view society. According to these theorists, an individual may choose to engage in ritualism when they have changed their cultural goals but still choose to stick to the same prescribed methodology by society. Perhaps this is one of the most negative but prevalent modes of political actions. Many political leaders are elected into office with the promise of achievement of certain goals and approaches, however, these leaders may begin to pursue their personal agenda under the premise of carrying out national duties. In functionalism, Merton discusses retreatism as another aspect where he explains the latter term as the concept of neglecting both the goals and means of achieving those goals. This can be explained by the fact that many political governments are forming coalition governments as we speak. (Rosamond, 2000)

Society’s views have been highly influenced by interactionism as a theory. This is because these days, many political representatives especially in the western world have been quoted while saying that they oppose class as an important driver in society. Instead, these political leaders ask members of the electorate to consider some of the things that they can do in order to change their country. For instance, Margaret Thatcher (a former UK prime minster) was fierce interactionist because she claimed that there was no such thing as “society”, instead she said that people are responsible for their own fate. This view has been adopted by many members of society. In fact, a substantial section of society adheres to the belief that political institutions can only be able to achieve certain elements; the rest is up to a specific individual who may be interested in achieving their own goals. The concept of personal responsibility has changed the place that political institutions have in the lives of people.

Additionally, interactionism has also affected the issue of adherence to rigid mechanism for dealing with political problems. For instance, when one looks at countries in which political dictators have been overthrown, this is possible because of the specific emphasis on the meaning that each individual carries rather than on the overall changes that have occurred in that particular society. (Wilson, 1995)

Individuals’ power is in almost all dimensions of society and the political aspect is one of them. In many countries, more people are participating in electoral processes because they realize the power that they hold as individuals. Also, more people are making unconventional choices in their political decisions because of influences from interactionism. For instance, the President elect of the United States is Barrack Obama. It can be argued that this candidate was chosen as a result of interactionist thoughts and ideas. First of all, he was unconventional both because of his experience in politics and also in terms of his race. However, the latter candidate was able to create effective interaction with the US electorate. He was able to convince them that they he had the ability to change their own destiny through their personal influence and this effective interactions could be the reason why he will be the forty fifth US President.

Societal views have also been radically transformed through the views put forward by conflict theorists. According to these proponents, conflicts arise when there are certain assumptions and privileges granted to one category of individuals. For example, in other countries, it is normally assumed that political positions can only be held by people from certain regions. Consequently, there is always a conflict that exists between members of one region against those of another. Such a scenario is highly prevalent in societies where there are high levels of ethnicity. Usually, this conflict may be manifested in a series of ways.

It should be noted that the conflict theory determines how political institutions depict conflict; this may occur through wars or revolutions. Taking the example of a country such as Burma; this country is currently dealing with a clash between the country’s political institutions. Members of the military are battling with members of the population in order to gain control of the country’s government.

Another example that can illustrate the latter issue is warfare that has occurred in a series of African countries with the latest being the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this country, rebel fighters in the Eastern region of the country strongly oppose the political government and this caused a lot of tension between the two categories. If one talks to the Congo’s rebel leader today, they are likely to find that he believes in warfare as a necessary means to topple an oppressive regime.
The conflict theory is founded on four major assumptions
• Competition
• structural inequality
• War
• Revolution (Wilson, 1995)

According to these theorists, human relationships are always characterized
by constant competition. There is always competing for finance, sexual partners or power. The latter form is particularly applicable to the political arena as a form of a social institution. If one looks at society in this manner, it is possible to understand why so many candidates aspiring for political positions must compete for them. The other assumption is that society is plagued with structural inequality. In other words, political power is only applicable to certain categories of people. This view has certainly affected how society operates today. War is a necessary part of causing change in political entities. This is because it unifies various groups. The latter explanation gives an insight into the reasons that cause these changes.

Conclusion
Political spheres of life are affected by functionalism because of changing flexibility in governments. Interactionism has empowered many members of society and the conflict theory has affected the way social change occurs.

References

Stark, R. (2007): Sociology; Thomas Wordsworth Publishers
Thio, A. (2008): A Brief Introduction to Sociology; Pearson Publishers
Lenski, G. (1999): A theory of social stratification – Power and privilege; McGraw hill Publishers
Griffin, E. (1997): A first look at communication theory; Mc GrawHill
Rosamond, B. (2000): Theories of European Integration; McMillan Press
Wilson, O. (1995): Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis; Clarendon Press
Goffman, E. (1998): The Presentation of self Everyday Life; University of Edinburgh Press

The author of this article is a holder of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard University and currently pursing PhD Program. He is also a professional academic writer. SuperiorWriters.Com>