CHAPTER 1

Sociology and the Real World

A shiny black SUV pulls up in front of your home or workplace and suddenly you are under the spell
of the Fab Five: Antoni, Bobby, Jonathan, Karamo, and Tan—a quintet of gay men skilled in culture,
fashion, grooming, design, and cuisine. Their mission each week: to save a different sad sack from
themselves. The Fab Five are there to get the nominees a much-needed pedicure, tweak their pasta
salad recipe, redecorate their living room, take them to trapeze class, get them into a slimming pair of
jeans, shave off that stubbly beard, perfect their “smoky eye,” and teach them how to overcome their
fears or be a better parent. They have great chemistry and always succeed, raising champagne glasses
in their hip loft at the end of each episode.

Each week, two contestants, one man and one woman, total strangers and completely naked, are
dropped deep into the wilderness with almost no supplies to see if they can survive together for
twenty-one days. In journeys across six continents, in such places as the Australian outback, the
jungles of Belize, and the savannah of Namibia, these pairs of contestants are tested both physically
and mentally, forced to discover what they’re truly made of. Will they “tap out” and ask to leave the
competition early, or will they have the fortitude to prevail through whatever hardships their journey
delivers? And perhaps most importantly, can these strangers forge the working partnership so essential
to the act of survival, or will pride, fear, or some other human weakness undermine their success?

A group of single women and a group of single men live separately in luxurious, dormitory-style
quarters, and interact only with a wall of opaque glass between them. All the women get a chance to
meet all the men, and then they have ten days to choose a mate and agree to an engagement—all
without ever seeing one another in person. Once engaged, they are finally allowed to see each other
and must work together quickly to prepare for a wedding in three weeks. Some get right down to
business (“Please put the snake back in the cage!” says Diamond, early in the process), while others
worry about moving too fast (“It’s only been five days,” says Lauren, who has just gotten engaged.
“I’ve had meals in my refrigerator longer than that. It’s crazy!”). The couples fly off to the Riviera
Maya in Mexico, return to meet their future in-laws, and plan the wedding together, all in quick
succession. After thirty-eight days, they arrive at the altar to reveal to their assembled family and
friends whether they will go through with the planned nuptials. Only two couples ultimately take the
plunge.

Is any of this real? Yes—kind of. It’s “reality television,” specifically Netflix’s Queer Eye, Discovery’s
Naked and Afraid, and Netflix’s Love Is Blind. And there’s a lot more where those came from.
Dancing with the Stars, The Voice, Top Chef, The Bachelor, and Real Housewives—as well as the
show that started it all in 1992, MTV’s The Real World—are just a few of the more popular shows.

Some of the shows claim to follow real people through their everyday lives or on the job, while others
impose bizarre conditions on participants, subject them to stylized competitions and gross-out stunts,
or make their dreams come true. Millions tune in every week to see real people eat bugs, get fired,
suffer romantic rejection, reveal their poor parenting, get branded as fat or ugly, cry over their
misfortunes, or get voted out of the house or off the island—mortifying themselves on camera for the
possibility of success, money, or fame.

Why are we so interested in these people? Because people are interesting! Because we are people, too.
No matter how different we are from the folks on reality TV, we are part of the same society, and for
that reason we are curious about how they live. We compare their lives with ours, wonder how
common or unusual they or we are, and marvel that we are all part of the same, real world. We, too,
may want to win competitions, date an attractive person, find a high-profile job, feel pretty or
handsome, be part of an exclusive group, or have a lovely home and family. We may even want to be
on a reality show ourselves.
How to Read This Chapter
You are embarking on a fascinating journey as you learn to see, think, and analyze yourself and the
world around you from a sociological perspective. The tools presented here will help you build a
foundation for new knowledge and insights into social life.

We will also share the story of the historical and intellectual development of the discipline of
sociology. We want to show you how the ideas that shape sociology are linked and introduce you to
the interesting men and women who came up with those ideas. Too often, theorists seem to be talking
heads, icons of social analysis who experience neither life-altering calamities nor shifting professional
fortunes. We want to overcome that perception. We believe that our individual experiences and
historical contexts shape our thoughts and the professional worlds we choose to join. This is as true
for Karl Marx as it is for Kerry Ferris, as true for Jane Addams as it is for Jill Stein—it’s true for all of
us; your own experiences and cultural and historical contexts will shape your ideas and work. In fact,
someday, someone may write a chapter about you!

As authors and teachers, we encourage you to develop some basic study techniques that will assist you
in your success as a new student to sociology (and perhaps beyond). You may want to highlight
portions of the text or take notes while you read. Mark passages you don’t understand, or keep a list of
questions about any aspect of the chapter. Don’t hesitate to discuss those questions with your
instructor or fellow students; those dialogues can be one of the most gratifying parts of the learning
process. Finally, we recommend that you attend class regularly—whether you’re in a face-to-face
classroom or online—as there is really no substitute for the shared experience of learning sociology
with others.

We are excited to join you on this journey of discovery. Though you may know a lot about social life
already, we hope to introduce you to even more—about yourself and the world around you—and to
provide valuable tools for the future. We wouldn’t want you to miss a thing. So here is where we start.
WHAT IS SOCIOLOGY?
Even among those working in the field, there is some debate about defining sociology. A look at the
term’s Latin and Greek roots, socius and logos, suggests that sociology means the study of society,
which is a good place to start. A slightly more elaborate definition might be the systematic or scientific
study of human society and social behavior. This could include almost any level within the structure
of society, from large-scale institutions and mass culture to small groups and relationships between
individuals.

Another definition comes from Howard Becker (1986), who suggests that sociology can best be
understood as the study of people “doing things together.” This version reminds us that neither society
nor the individual exists in isolation and that humans are essentially social beings. Not only is our
survival contingent on the fact that we live in various groups (families, neighborhoods, dorms), but
also our sense of self derives from our membership in society. In turn, the accumulated activities that
people do together create the patterns and structures we call society. So sociologists want to
understand how humans affect society, as well as how society affects humans.

One way to better understand sociology is to contrast it with other social sciences, disciplines that
examine the human or social world, much as the natural sciences examine the natural or physical
world. These include anthropology, psychology, economics, political science, and sometimes history,
geography, and communication studies. Each has its own particular focus on the social world. In some
ways, sociology’s territory overlaps with other social sciences, even while maintaining its own
approach.

Like history, sociology compares the past and the present in order to understand both; unlike history,
sociology is more likely to focus on contemporary society. Sociology is interested in societies at all
levels of development, while anthropology is more likely to concentrate on traditional or small,
indigenous cultures. Sociology looks at a range of social institutions, unlike economics or political
science, which each focuses on a single institution. Like geography, sociology considers the
relationship of people to places, though geography is more concerned with the places themselves. And
like communication studies, sociology examines human communication—at both the social and the
interpersonal levels, rather than one or the other. Finally, sociology looks at the individual in
relationship to external social forces, whereas psychology specializes in internal states of mind. As
you can begin to see, sociology covers a huge intellectual territory, making it exceptional among the
social sciences in taking a comprehensive, integrative approach to understanding human life (Figure
1.1).
FIGURE 1.1 Sociology and the Social Sciences Sociology overlaps with other social sciences,
but much of the territory it covers is unique.
Glossary
SOCIOLOGY
the systematic or scientific study of human society and social behavior, from large-scale
institutions and mass culture to small groups and individual interactions
SOCIETY
a group of people who shape their lives in aggregated and patterned ways that distinguish their
group from others
SOCIAL SCIENCES
the disciplines that use the scientific method to examine the social world
HOW TO THINK LIKE A SOCIOLOGIST
How do sociologists go about understanding human life in society? The first step is to develop what
we call the sociological perspective, which is also referred to as taking a sociological approach or
thinking sociologically. In any case, it means looking at the world in a unique way and seeing it in a
whole new light. You may be naturally inclined to think sociologically, but, for many, the following
practices are helpful.
Practical vs. Scientific Knowledge
You already possess many of the skills of an astute analyst of social life, but you take your knowledge
for granted because you gained it as an everyday actor. In this course, you will build a new identity:
social analyst. These are two very different ways of experiencing the same social world.

Everyday actors approach their social world with what is referred to as “reciped,” or practical,
knowledge (Schutz 1962), which allows them to get along in their everyday life. However, practical
knowledge is not necessarily as coherent, clear, and consistent as it could be. For example, you are
probably very skilled at using a smartphone. It brings you into daily contact with friends and family,
puts you in touch with the pizza delivery guy, and allows you to register for classes and find out your
grades at the end of the term. But you probably can’t explain how it works in a technical way; you
know only how it works for you in a practical, everyday way. This is the important feature of the
everyday actor’s knowledge: It is practical, not scientific.

To acquire knowledge about the social world that is systematic, comprehensive, coherent, clear, and
consistent, you’ll need to take a different approach. The social analyst has to “place in question
everything that seems unquestionable” to the everyday actor (Schutz 1962, p. 96). In other words, the
social analyst takes the perspective of a stranger in the social world; a social analyst tries to verify
what the everyday actor might just accept as truth. For instance, people tend to believe that women are
more talkative than men. This might seem so evident, in fact, as not to be worth investigating. The
social analyst, however, would investigate and deliver a more complex conclusion than you might
think.

There are strengths and weaknesses in both approaches: The analyst sees with clarity what the actor
glosses over, but the actor understands implicitly what the analyst labors to grasp. Once you’ve
learned more about the theories and methods that come next, you’ll be able to combine the virtues of
both analyst and actor. The result will be a more profound and comprehensive understanding of the
social world in which we all live.
Beginner’s Mind
One technique for gaining a sociological perspective comes from Bernard McGrane (1994), who
promotes a shift in thinking borrowed from the Zen Buddhist tradition. McGrane suggests that we
practice what is called beginner’s mind—the opposite of expert’s mind, which is so filled with facts,
projections, assumptions, opinions, and explanations that it can’t learn anything new. If we would like
to better understand the world around us, we must unlearn what we already know. Beginner’s mind
approaches the world without knowing in advance what it will find; it is open and receptive to
experience.

Doing Nothing How does standing in a crowded place and doing nothing change how you
experience the ordinary world?

Perhaps our greatest obstacle to making new discoveries is our habitual ways of thinking.
“Discovery,” McGrane says, “is not the seeing of a new thing—but rather a new way of seeing things”
(1994, p. 3). One way to achieve this kind of awareness is to practice being present in the moment.
You might have tried this already if you’ve done any training in what is called “mindfulness.” The
problem is that we are often preoccupied with thoughts and feelings that prevent us from fully
participating in reality. If we can find some inner stillness and stop our normal mental chatter,
McGrane says, then there is a possibility for true learning to occur. It is in this quiet space that a
personal “paradigm shift” (a new model for understanding self and society) can take place.
DATA WORKSHOP

Analyzing Everyday Life

Doing Nothing

Zen sociologist Bernard McGrane suggests that we actually “do” sociology, rather than just study it.
His book The Un-TV and the 10 MPH Car (1994) features exercises designed to help students
experience the mundane, routine, and everyday level of society in a new way. This Data Workshop is
an adaptation of one of his experiments. You will be practicing beginner’s mind, one of the ways to
gain a sociological perspective, or to think like a sociologist.
Step 1: Conducting the Experiment

This exercise requires that you stand in a relatively busy public space (a mall, street corner, park, or
campus quad) and literally do nothing for ten minutes. That means just standing there and being
unoccupied. Don’t wait for someone, take a break, sightsee, or otherwise engage in a normal kind of
activity. Also don’t daydream or think about the past or the future; don’t entertain yourself with plans
or internal dialogues. Don’t whistle, hum, fidget, look in your bag, play with your phone, take notes,
or do anything else that might distract you from just being there and doing nothing. Do, however,
observe the reactions of others to you, and pay attention to your own thoughts and feelings during
these ten minutes.

Step 2: Taking Notes about the Experience

Immediately after conducting the experiment, write some informal notes about what happened or did
not happen. These notes can be loosely structured (with sentence fragments or bullet points, if you
wish), and they should be casual and written in the first person. Discuss the experience and its
meaning to you in as much detail as possible. Include a description of other people’s reactions as well
as your own thoughts and feelings before, during, and after the experiment.

This exercise may seem deceptively simple at first, but the subtle change from “doing something” to
“doing nothing” makes everything different. It helps turn the ordinary world into a strange place. It
makes you more aware of your own sense of self (or lack thereof) and how identity is constructed
through interaction. You may find it challenging to put aside the mental and physical activities that
you normally engage in to pass the time. And you may feel uncomfortable standing in a public place
when other people can’t quite figure out who you are and what you’re doing. Finally, you will no
longer be able to take for granted how the meaning of a situation is being defined or interpreted.
Divested of your role as an everyday actor, you’ll learn how the most mundane activities (like just
standing around) can become major objects of sociological inquiry.

There are two options for completing this Data Workshop:

PREP-PAIR-SHARE

Complete the exercise and bring your written notes to class. Partner with another student and take
turns presenting your findings. Discuss the ways in which your experiences were similar or different.
What was it like to “do” sociology? Did you see things in a new way? What was the most interesting
part about conducting the experiment?

DO-IT-YOURSELF

Complete the exercise and write a two- to three-page essay based on the main concepts and prompts
from this Data Workshop. Describe your experience and the results of your research. How did the
experiment help you learn to think more like a sociologist? You may want to include snippets of your
informal written notes to illustrate your points. Attach the informal notes to your finished essay.
Culture Shock
Peter Berger (1963) describes the kind of person who becomes a sociologist: someone with a
passionate interest in the world of human affairs, someone who is intense, curious, and daring in the
pursuit of knowledge. “People who like to avoid shocking discoveries … should stay away from
sociology,” he warns (p. 24). The sociologist cares about the issues of ultimate importance to
humanity, as well as the most mundane occurrences of everyday existence.

Another way to gain a sociological perspective is to attempt to create in ourselves a sense of culture
shock. Anthropologists use the term to describe the experience of visiting an “exotic” foreign culture.
The first encounters with the local natives and their way of life can seem so strange to us that they
produce a kind of disorientation and doubt about our ability to make sense of things. Putting all
judgment aside for the moment, this state of mind can be very useful. For it is at this point, when we
so completely lack an understanding of our surroundings, that we are truly able to perceive what is
right in front of our eyes.

As sociologists, we try to create this effect without necessarily displacing ourselves geographically:
We become curious and eager visitors to our own lives. We often find that what is familiar to us, if
viewed from an outsider’s perspective, is just as exotic as some foreign culture, only we’ve forgotten
this is true because it’s our own and we know it so well. To better understand this state of mind, you
might imagine what it would be like to return home after being shipwrecked and living alone on a
desert island. Or, if you’ve traveled abroad or moved away to attend college, perhaps it’s something
you’ve already experienced but didn’t know what to call.
The Sociological Imagination
One of the classic statements about the sociological perspective comes from C. Wright Mills (1916–
1962), who describes a quality of mind that all great social analysts seem to possess: the sociological
imagination. By this, he means the ability to understand “the intersection between biography and
history,” or the interplay of the micro world of the self and individual psychology and the macro world
of larger social forces; this is sociology’s task and its “promise” (Mills 1959).

We normally think of our own problems as a private matter of character, chance, or circumstance, and
we overlook the fact that these may be caused in part by, or at least occur within, a specific cultural
and historical context. For example, if you can’t find a job, you may feel that it’s because you don’t
have the right skills, educational background, or experience. But it may also be the result of problems
in the larger economy such as outsourcing, downsizing, restrictive policies, changing technologies, or
migration patterns. In other words, your individual unemployment may be part of a larger social and
historical phenomenon.

Most of the time, we use psychological rather than sociological arguments to explain the way things
are. For instance, if someone is carrying a lot of credit card debt, psychological reasoning might focus
on the person’s lack of self-control or inability to delay gratification. Sociological reasoning, however,
might focus on the impact of cultural norms that promote a lifestyle beyond most people’s means, or
on economic changes that require more Americans to rely on credit cards because their wages have
not kept up with inflation.
IN RELATIONSHIPS
It’s Official: Men Talk More Than Women
The practice of sociology may seem to be about just a bunch of common sense. But this is true only
part of the time. Some of what you learn may indeed seem familiar and may confirm some of the
conclusions you’ve made about it. Drawing on the personal knowledge you have accumulated in life
will be a valuable asset as a starting place, but it can also be a stumbling block to deeper
understanding. There are times that the things that “everyone knows” turn out not to be true, or at least
not as simple as we might have thought.

Take, for instance, the widely held belief that women talk more than men. Experience seems to
confirm that this is true, obviously! Women are chatty, and a lot of men, if not the strong silent type,
definitely have trouble getting a word in edgewise. And women have a hard time getting men to talk
when they want them to; sometimes, to get a man to tell you what he’s thinking, you have to drag it
out of him. While you may recognize this description of the different genders, and may be able to
relate with your own anecdote of such an encounter (or perhaps many such encounters), your casual
assumptions about who talks more may need some revising. Numerous sociological studies that
analyze conversational dynamics show that, despite stereotypes to the contrary, it’s actually men who
are slightly more talkative (Leaper and Ayres 2007). How could that be?

Well, it depends on the context. Men are more talkative with their wives and with strangers. Women
are more talkative with their children and with college classmates. With close friends and families,
men and women are equally talkative. Studies have also shown other, perhaps more easily predictable,
gender differences. For example, men use speech that is more assertive (they want to persuade others),
while women use speech that is more affiliative (they are more focused on connecting with others).
Sociologists have long noted that men are also more dominant in conversations, cutting off and
interrupting women more often (Anderson and Leaper 1998; Hancock and Rubin 2015; Kollock,
Blumstein, and Schwartz 1985; Zimmerman and West 1975).

“Mansplaining” is another way that men assert their dominance in conversations (Solnit 2008). The
word is rather new, but the idea has been around for decades (Manne 2020). Mansplaining is the
tendency, especially for men, to explain things in a condescending or patronizing way, with the
presumption that the one doing the explaining knows more than the listener (even when this is clearly
not the case). Men are more likely to “mansplain” in conversations with women, reinforcing gender
stereotypes about who has more power and, in these cases, more knowledge. Perhaps because so many
people have been on the receiving end of mansplaining, the word has gained acceptance into the
current lexicon as well as the Oxford English Dictionary (Steinmetz 2014). There are also words for it
in French (mecspliquer), German (herrklären), and even Icelandic (hrútskýring). It has become a
useful label for a widely recognized behavior. Of course, it’s not only men who engage in
mansplaining to women; sometimes men mansplain to other men, and sometimes women do it to men
or to each other (McClintock 2016).

These findings seem to defy what has been considered a biological fact, that the female brain is wired
to be more verbal. But because who talks more varies by situation, the evidence seems to indicate that
language and conversational differences are influenced more by social forces than biological forces,
including power dynamics. So despite how it might feel from your own personal experience,
sociology has debunked some common myths about women and men, requiring us to rethink
simplistic gender stereotypes.
This is why doing sociology is in some regards a radical undertaking. It requires of us a willingness to
suspend our own preconceptions, assumptions, and beliefs about the way things are. As sociologists,
we need to learn to question everything, especially our own taken-for-granted notions about others and
ourselves. Once these notions have been set aside, even temporarily, we gain a fresh perspective with
which to uncover and discover aspects of social life we hadn’t noticed before. We are then able to
reinterpret our previous understanding of the world, perhaps challenging, or possibly confirming, what
we thought we already knew.

“I’m speaking” During the vice presidential debate, former vice president Mike Pence
interrupted then-senator Kamala Harris ten times, more than twice as often as Harris interrupted
him.

The sociological imagination searches for the link between micro and macro levels of analysis. We
must look for how larger social forces, such as race, class, gender, religion, economics, or politics, are
involved in creating the context of a person’s life. Mills’s characterization of sociology as the
intersection between biography and history reminds us that the process works in both directions:
While larger social forces influence individual lives, individual lives can affect society as well.
 C. Wright Mills

One of the most important benefits of using the sociological imagination is access to a world beyond
our own immediate sphere, where we can discover radically different ways of experiencing life and
interpreting reality. It can help us appreciate alternative viewpoints and understand how they may
have come about. This, in turn, helps us better understand how we developed our own values, beliefs,
and attitudes.

Sociology asks us to see our familiar world in a new way, and doing so means we may need to
abandon, or at least reevaluate, our opinions about that world and our place in it. It is tempting to
believe that our opinions are widely held, that our worldview is the best or, at least, most common.
Taking a sociological perspective forces us to see fallacies in our way of thinking. Because other
individuals are different from us—belonging to different social groups, participating in different social
institutions, living in different cities or countries, listening to different songs, watching different TV
programs, engaging in different religious practices—they may look at the world very differently than
we do. But a sociological perspective also allows us to see the other side of this equation: In cases
where we assume that others are different from us, we may be surprised to find that their approach to
their everyday world is quite similar to ours.
Glossary
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
a way of looking at the world through a sociological lens
BEGINNER’S MIND
approaching the world without preconceptions in order to see things in a new way
CULTURE SHOCK
a sense of disorientation that occurs when entering a radically new social or cultural
environment
SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
a quality of the mind that allows us to understand the relationship between our individual
circumstances and larger social forces
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS: MICRO- AND
MACROSOCIOLOGY
Consider a photographer with state-of-the-art equipment. The photographer can view their subject through
either a zoom lens or a wide-angle lens. Through the zoom lens, the photographer sees intricate details about
the subject’s appearance; through the wide-angle lens, they get the “big picture” and a sense of the broader
context in which the subject is located. Both views are valuable in understanding the subject, and both result
in photographs of the same thing.

Sociological perspectives are like the photographer’s lenses, giving us different ways of looking at a
common subject (Newman 2000). Sociologists can take a microsociological (zoom lens) perspective, a
macrosociological (wide-angle lens) perspective, or any number of perspectives located on the continuum
between the two (Figure 1.2).

FIGURE 1.2 The Macro-Micro Continuum Sociology covers a wide range of topics at different
levels of analysis.
Microsociology concentrates on the interactions between individuals and the ways in which those
interactions construct the larger patterns, processes, and institutions of society. As the word indicates
(“micro” means small), microsociology looks at the smallest building blocks of society in order to
understand its large-scale structure. A classic example of research that takes a micro approach is Victoria
Leto DeFrancisco’s article “The Sounds of Silence: How Men Silence Women in Marital Relations” (1991).
Like many scholars who had observed the feminist movements of the 1960s and ’70s, DeFrancisco was
concerned with issues of power and domination in male–female relationships: Are men more powerful than
women in our society? If so, how is this power created and maintained in everyday interactions? In her
research, DeFrancisco recorded and analyzed heterosexual couples’ everyday conversations in their homes.
She found some real differences in the conversational strategies of men and women and some surprising
results about gender, power, and silence in everyday talk.

One conversation took place in the living room, where a woman was having a difficult time engaging her
husband in a discussion about an encounter she had had while shopping. He failed to respond for long
stretches of time, sometimes staying quiet for four and even eight seconds at a time and only rarely uttering
an “mm-hmm” or an “aahh” to fill the gap. The husband even walked outside twice while the wife was
speaking! But she persisted, trying to keep control of the conversation and maintain her right to continue.

DeFrancisco recorded many more conversations between couples and saw this pattern over and over: men
using silence to suppress women’s talk. DeFrancisco noted that when men withhold what are called
“supportive responses” (“mm-hmm,” “oh,” “a-ha,” etc.), they are violating a firmly held rule of
conversational structure. Supportive responses help storytellers continue speaking by acknowledging that
they are being heard and understood. Without supportive responses from men, women must work harder to
keep a conversation going, which also makes it more likely that they will be silenced by their partner’s lack
of response. Thus, in her micro-level analysis of conversation, DeFrancisco was able to see how macro-level
(“macro” means large) phenomena such as gender and power are manifested in everyday interactions.
IN THE FUTURE
C. Wright Mills and the Sociological Imagination
The “sociological imagination” is a term that seemingly every sociology student encounters. It was first
introduced by C. Wright Mills in his 1959 book of the same name, and over time it has become an enduring
cornerstone of the discipline. It captures the spirit of inquiry, the quality of mind, and the guiding principles
that all sociologists should embrace. Mills was sometimes critical of sociology as a discipline, so he offered
himself as a “public intellectual,” one who could speak beyond the confines of academia and address some
of the most pressing social issues of the time. Mills was convinced that sociology had something to offer
everyone, not just academics.

Mills highlighted the distinction between “personal troubles” and “public issues” as “an essential tool of the
sociological imagination and a feature of all classic work in social science” (Mills 1959, p. 8). He explained
that almost any feature of an individual’s daily life can be better understood if this distinction is applied to it.
Unemployment, war, marriage, and housing are all experienced as personal troubles, but to be fully
understood, they must also be seen as manifestations of long-standing institutions and larger social
structures. As Mills pointed out, “In so far as an economy is so arranged that slumps occur, the problem of
unemployment becomes incapable of personal solution” (Mills 1959, p. 10). This lesson was driven home
again during the Covid-19 pandemic. In March 2020, as infections and deaths were rising around the world,
a series of society-wide shutdowns were put in place to keep people safe and slow the spread of the virus.
Suddenly, millions of Americans were out of work, particularly low-wage workers in industries like leisure
and hospitality, travel and transportation, and construction (Terrell 2021). The unemployment rate
skyrocketed to nearly 15 percent—the highest level since the Great Depression. For the many millions of
people thrown out of work, unemployment was experienced as a personal trouble; people could no longer
pay rent, buy food, or access health care. However, these personal troubles can be understood only when
they are viewed as a public issue—a global crisis beyond the control of any individual.

In even more fundamental ways, Mills believed that people are shaped by the connections between “the
patterns of their own lives and the course of world history” (Mills 1959, p. 4). These connections could
influence the most personal features of someone’s life, shaping the very kind of people “they are becoming”
(p. 4). In her book Unbearable Weight (1995), Susan Bordo describes how anorexia came to be recognized
as a national mental health problem. In 1973, psychiatrists still considered anorexia quite rare, so why is
there so much awareness about eating disorders now? Anorexia and bulimia are experienced in intensely
personal ways, and eating disorders are usually explained in purely psychological terms. But Bordo,
thinking about them sociologically, argues that cultural factors help create eating disorders. Contemporary
culture’s obsession with bodies that are “slim, tight, and young” (p. 140) shapes individual psychologies.
Eating disorders, then, are symptoms of a troubled culture as well as a troubled individual. This is not to
deny that personal and psychological factors are important, but it is a reminder that social and cultural
factors create the environment that makes it possible to experience problems like eating disorders in the first
place.

Today you may be a student in an introductory sociology class; every year, more than 25,000 students will
receive bachelor’s degrees in sociology (U.S. Department of Education 2019). Whether or not you end up
majoring in sociology, C. Wright Mills wanted everyone to develop and sharpen a sociological imagination.
In fact, that is the goal we share in writing this textbook. How might the sociological imagination be useful
to you in the future?
 Personal Troubles and Public Issues High unemployment rates during the Covid-19 pandemic were
both a personal trouble and a public issue.

Macrosociology approaches the study of society from the opposite direction, by looking at large-scale social
structures to determine how they affect the lives of groups and individuals. If we want to stick to the topic of
gender inequality, we can find plenty of examples of research projects that take a macro approach; many
deal with the workplace. Despite the gains made in recent years, the U.S. labor market is still predominantly
sex segregated—that is, men and women are concentrated in different occupations. Sociologist Christine
Williams found that while women in male-dominated fields experience limits on their advancement, dubbed
the “glass ceiling” effect, men in female-dominated occupations experience unusually rapid rates of upward
mobility—what she called the “glass escalator” (Williams 1992, 1995, 2013). Here, then, we see a macro
approach to the topic of gender and power: Large-scale features of social structure (patterns of occupational
sex segregation) create the constraints within which individuals and groups (women and men in the
workplace) experience successes or failures in their everyday lives.

As you can see, these two perspectives make different assumptions about how society works: The micro
perspective assumes that society’s larger structures are shaped through individual interactions, while the
macro perspective assumes that society’s larger structures shape those individual interactions. It is useful to
think of these perspectives as being on a continuum with each other; while some sociologists adhere to
radically micro or exclusively macro perspectives, most are somewhere in between. The next part of this
chapter explores some specific theoretical traditions within sociology and shows you where each falls along
this continuum.
Levels of Analysis These two views of the New York Public Library represent different levels of
analysis in sociology. Microsociology zooms in to focus on individuals, their interactions, and groups
in order to understand their contribution to larger social structures. In contrast, macrosociology pulls
back to examine large-scale social processes and their effects on individuals and groups.
Glossary
MICROSOCIOLOGY
the level of analysis that studies face-to-face and small-group interactions in order to understand how
they affect the larger patterns and structures of society
MACROSOCIOLOGY
the level of analysis that studies large-scale social structures in order to determine how they affect the
lives of groups and individuals
SOCIOLOGY’S FAMILY TREE
Great thinkers have been trying to understand the world and our place in it since the beginning of
time. Some have done this by developing theories: abstract propositions about how things are, as well
as how they should be. Sometimes we also refer to theories as “approaches,” “schools of thought,”
“paradigms,” or “perspectives.” Social theories, then, are guiding principles or abstract models that
attempt to explain and predict the social world.

As we embark on the discussion of theory, it may be useful to think of sociology as having a “family
tree” (page 17) made up of real people who were living in a particular time and place and who were
related along various intertwining lines to other members of the same larger family tree. First, we will
examine sociology’s early historical roots. Then, as we follow the growth of the discipline, we will
identify its major branches and trace the relationships among their offshoots and the other “limbs” that
make up the entire family tree. Finally, we will examine some of the newest theoretical approaches
and members of the family tree and consider the possible future of sociological theory.
Sociology’s Roots
The earliest Western social theorists focused on establishing society as an appropriate object of
scientific scrutiny, which was itself a revolutionary concept. These early theorists were not
sociologists (since the discipline didn’t yet exist) but rather people from a variety of backgrounds—
philosophers, theologians, economists, historians, journalists—who were trying to look at society in a
new way. In doing so, they laid the groundwork not only for the discipline as a whole but also for the
different schools of thought that are still shaping sociology today.
 Auguste Comte

AUGUSTE COMTE (1798–1857)

was the first to provide a program for the scientific study of society, or a “social physics,” as he
labeled it. Comte, a French scientist, developed a theory of the progress of human thinking from its
early theological and metaphysical stages toward a final “positive,” or scientific, stage. Positivism
seeks to identify laws that describe the behavior of a particular reality, such as the laws of
mathematics and physics, in which people gain knowledge of the world directly through their senses.
Having grown up in the aftermath of the French Revolution and its lingering political instability,
Comte felt that society needed positivist guidance toward both social progress and social order. After
studying at an elite science and technology college, where he was introduced to the newly discovered
scientific method, he began to imagine a way of applying the methodology to social affairs. His ideas,
featured in (1842), became the foundation of a scientific discipline that would describe the laws of
social phenomena and help control social life; he called it “sociology.”

Although Comte is remembered today mainly for coining the term, he played a significant role in the
development of sociology as a discipline. His efforts to distinguish appropriate methods and topics for
sociologists provided the kernel of a discipline. Other social thinkers advanced his work: Harriet
Martineau and Herbert Spencer in England and Émile Durkheim in France.
 Harriet Martineau

HARRIET MARTINEAU (1802–1876)

was born in England to progressive parents who made sure their daughter was well educated. She
became a journalist and political economist, proclaiming views that were radical for her time—she
endorsed labor unions, the abolition of slavery, and women’s suffrage.
In 1835, Martineau traveled to the United States to judge the new democracy on its own terms rather
than by European standards. But she was disappointed: By condoning slavery and denying full
citizenship rights to women and Black people, the American experiment was, in her eyes, flawed and
hypocritical. She wrote two books describing her observations, Society in America (1837) and
Retrospect of Western Travel (1838), both critical of American leadership and culture. By holding the
United States to its own publicly stated democratic standards, rather than seeing the country from an
ethnocentric British perspective, she was a precursor to the naturalistic sociologists who would
establish the discipline in America. In 1853, Martineau made perhaps her most important contribution
to sociology: She translated Comte’s Introduction to Positive Philosophy into English, thus making his
ideas accessible in England and America.
 Herbert Spencer

HERBERT SPENCER (1820–1903)

was primarily responsible for the establishment of sociology in Britain and America. Although
Spencer did not receive academic training, he grew up in a highly individualistic family and was
encouraged to think and learn on his own. His interests leaned heavily toward physical science and,
instead of attending college, Spencer chose to become a railway engineer. When railway work dried
up, he turned to journalism and eventually worked for a major periodical in London. There he became
acquainted with leading English academics and began to publish his own thoughts in book form.

In 1862, Spencer drew up a list of what he called “first principles” (in a book by that name), and near
the top of the list was the notion of evolution driven by natural selection. Charles Darwin is the best-
known proponent of the theory, but the idea of evolution was in wide circulation before Darwin made
it famous. Spencer proposed that societies, like biological organisms, evolve through time by adapting
to changing conditions, with less successful adaptations falling by the wayside. He coined the phrase
“survival of the fittest,” and his social philosophy is sometimes known as social Darwinism. In the late
1800s, Spencer’s work, including The Study of Sociology (1873) and The Principles of Sociology
(1897), was virtually synonymous with sociology in the English-speaking world. The scope and
volume of his writing served to announce sociology as a serious discipline and laid the groundwork
for the next generation of theorists, whose observations of large-scale social change would bring a
new viewpoint to social theory.
Glossary
THEORIES
abstract propositions that explain the social world and make predictions about the future
PARADIGM
a set of assumptions, theories, and perspectives that makes up a way of understanding social
reality
POSITIVISM
the theory that sense perceptions are the only valid source of knowledge
SOCIAL DARWINISM
the application of the theory of evolution and the notion of “survival of the fittest” to the study
of society
MACROSOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Theorists in late-nineteenth-century Europe were living during extraordinary times. They were
attempting to explain social order, social change, and social inequality while the world around them
changed as a result of the Industrial Revolution. At the same time, they were witnessing political
upheaval and the birth of democracy brought about by the French and American Revolutions. These
were changes on the grandest of scales in the macro order of society. Frequently referred to as
classical sociology, the theories that arose during this period reflect the broad subject matter of a
sweeping era.
Structural Functionalism
Structural functionalism, or functionalist theory, was the dominant theoretical perspective within
sociology well into the mid-twentieth century. New (or neo-) functionalists continue to apply their
own vision of the theory to study a wide variety of social phenomena today.

FOUNDER AND KEY CONTRIBUTIONS

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) is the central figure in functionalist theory. He was born into a close-
knit and deeply religious Jewish family who instilled in him a strong sense of morality (not just as an
abstract concept but as a concrete influence on social relations) and a strong work ethic. After
witnessing the ravages of the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), he hoped that applied science could
stabilize and revitalize France in the aftermath of its devastating defeat. He did not believe that
traditional, abstract moral philosophy was effective in increasing understanding and bringing about
social change, so he turned instead to the concrete science of sociology as represented in Comte’s
work.
 Émile Durkheim

In his first major study, The Division of Labor in Society (1893), Durkheim stated that solidarity, or
unity, was present in all types of societies but that different types of societies created different types of
social bonds. He suggested that people in a simple agricultural society were bound together by
mechanical solidarity—that is, on the basis of shared traditions, beliefs, and experiences. In industrial
societies, where factory work was becoming increasingly specialized, organic solidarity prevailed:
People’s bonds were based on the tasks they performed, interdependence, and individual rights. Both
types of solidarity have interpersonal bonds—just with different qualities.

Durkheim believed that even the most individualistic actions have sociological explanations and set
out to establish a scientific methodology for studying these actions. He chose for his case study the
most individualistic of actions—suicide—and used statistical data to show that suicides were related
to social factors such as religious affiliation, marital status, and employment. Explaining a particular
suicide by focusing exclusively on the victim’s psychological makeup neglected the impact of social
bonds. According to Durkheim in his now-classic study Suicide (1897), even the darkest depression
has its roots in an individual’s connections to the social world, or rather his lack of connection.
Durkheim theorized that suicide is one result of anomie, a sense of disconnection brought about by the
changing conditions of modern life. The more firmly anchored people are to family, religion, and the
workplace, the less anomie they are likely to experience.

In his final major study, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), Durkheim suggested that
religion was a powerful source of social solidarity because it reinforced collective bonds and shared
moral values. He believed that society could be understood by examining the most basic forms of
religion. Durkheim’s study of the indigenous peoples of Australia led him to a universal definition of
religion: Though religious traditions might differ, any form of religion is unified in its definition of
what is considered to be sacred and profane. Every person who follows a particular set of beliefs and
practices will “unite into one single moral community” (Durkheim 1912/1995, p. 44).

Durkheim’s attempt to establish sociology as an important, independent academic discipline was

enormously successful. He not only made significant contributions to the existing literature but also
demonstrated the effectiveness of using scientific, empirical methods to study “social reality,”
essentially validating Comte’s proposal from half a century earlier. Durkheim became the first
professor of social science in France, at the University of Bordeaux in 1887, and later won a similar
appointment at the Sorbonne in Paris, the very heart of French academic life. Today, Durkheim’s
eminence in the social sciences is as strong as ever, and his ideas are still applied and extended by
contemporary theorists.

ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES
The origins of structural functionalism can be traced back to the roots of sociology. Auguste Comte
proposed that society itself could and should be studied. Herbert Spencer added the idea that societies
are living organisms that grow and evolve, just like other species on the planet. As the discipline of
biology might study the physical organism of the human body, the discipline of sociology could study
social organisms in the world of human development. Durkheim integrated and advanced these
insights into a comprehensive theory for understanding the nature of society.

There are two main principles of functionalism. First, society is conceived as a stable, ordered system
made up of interrelated parts, or structures. Second, each structure has a function that contributes to
the continued stability or equilibrium of the unified whole. Structures are identified as social
institutions such as the family, the educational system, politics, the economy, and religion. They meet
society’s needs by performing different functions, and every function is necessary to maintain social
order and stability. Any disorganization or dysfunction in a structure leads to change and a new
equilibrium; if one structure is transformed, the others must also adjust. For example, if families fail to
discipline children, then schools, churches, and the courts must pick up the slack.

It may seem contradictory that a theory concerned with order and stability would emerge in a
discipline that arose in a period of rapid social change. But it is important to remember that change
had previously occurred much more slowly and that one response to rapid social change is to try to
understand what has come before—stability, order, and equilibrium.

OFFSHOOTS
Structural functionalism was the dominant theoretical perspective in Europe for much of the early
twentieth century. It was exported and updated by American functionalists, who increased its
popularity and helped spread its reach well into the 1960s. For example, Talcott Parsons (1902–1979)
elaborated on the theory and applied it to modern society, specifying some of the functions that social
structures might fulfill in contemporary life. A healthy society must provide a means for people to
adapt to their environment; for example, families, schools, and religious institutions work together to
socialize children. A functional society includes opportunities for success—for example, it promotes
education to help its members pursue and realize their goals. For society to survive, there must be
social cohesion; for example, shared religious and moral values.

Talcott Parsons

Another modern American functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), delineated the theory even
further, identifying manifest and latent functions for different social structures. Manifest functions are
the obvious, intended functions of a social structure, while latent functions are the less obvious,
perhaps unintended functions. For example, the manifest functions of education are to prepare future
members of society by teaching them how to read and write and by instructing them on society’s
system of norms, values, and laws. However, education has a latent function as well, which is to keep
kids busy and out of trouble eight hours a day, five days a week, for twelve years (or longer). Do not
doubt that this is also an important contribution to social order!

Robert Merton

ADVANTAGES AND CRITIQUES

One of the great advantages of functionalism is its inclusion of all social institutions. Functionalism
attempts to provide a universal social theory, a way of explaining society in one comprehensive
model. Part of functionalism’s appeal may also lie in its ability to bring order to a potentially
disorderly world. Were it not for some of the volcanic social upheavals of recent history—the civil
rights, antiwar, and women’s liberation movements are not easily explained using this model—
functionalist theory might still reign supreme in American sociology. Functionalism, generally
preoccupied with stability, takes the position that only dysfunction can create social change. This
conservative bias is part of a larger problem with the theory: Functionalism provides little insight into
social processes because its model of society is static rather than dynamic. Its focus on the macro level
also means that functionalism has less interest in explaining independent human action; there is no
apparent approach to the lives of individuals except as part of social institutions.

Functionalism’s explanations of social inequality are especially unsatisfying: If poverty, racism, and
sexism exist, they must serve a function for society; they must be necessary and inevitable. This view
is problematic for many. Sociologist Herbert Gans, in a critical essay (1971), reviewed the functions
of poverty for society. The poor, for example, do our “dirty work,” filling the menial, low-wage jobs
that are necessary to keep society running smoothly but that others refuse to do. The poor provide a
market for used and off-price goods and keep thrift stores and social welfare agencies in business.
They have symbolic value as well, allowing those higher in the social hierarchy to feel compassion
toward the “deserving” poor and to feel threatened by the “undeserving” poor, who are often seen as
dangerous social deviants. Ultimately, the circular reasoning that characterizes functionalist thought
turns out to be its biggest problem: The mere persistence of an institution should not be seen as an
adequate explanation for its existence.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory is the second major school of thought in sociology. Like structural functionalism, it’s a
macro-level approach to understanding social life that dates to mid-nineteenth-century Europe.
Conflict theory posits that social inequality is the basic characteristic of society. By focusing on
inequality, conflict theory helped address some of the critiques of structural functionalism.
 Karl Marx

FOUNDER AND KEY CONTRIBUTIONS

The work of Karl Marx (1818–1883), a German political economist, was the inspiration for conflict
theory, so the terms “conflict theory” and “Marxism” are sometimes used interchangeably in the social
sciences. Marx’s ideas have become better known to the world as the basis for communism, a political
system some countries claim to have adopted (Cuba and North Korea, for example), though these
systems are actually totalitarian dictatorships; they bear no resemblance to Marx’s ideal society. This
misunderstanding has led many to a narrow belief that Marx was nothing more than a misguided
agitator who helped cause more than a century of political turmoil. It is important to recognize that
Marx would not have supported the ways political leaders used his ideas decades later. Sociologists
have found that Marx’s theory continues to provide a powerful tool for understanding social
phenomena. The idea that conflict between social groups is central to the workings of society and
serves as the engine of social change is one of the most vital perspectives in sociology today.

Marx grew up in a modernizing, industrializing, yet politically and religiously conservative monarchy;
this, plus the fact that his was a restless, argumentative personality, accounts in great part for his social
theory. For most of his life, he led an economically fragile existence. He managed to maintain a
tenuous middle-class lifestyle, but only with financial support from his close friend and chief
intellectual collaborator Friedrich Engels, who studied the conditions of the English working class.
Marx’s own circumstances may have sparked his interest in social inequality, or the uneven and often
unfair distribution of resources (in this case, wealth) in society, but he never experienced firsthand the
particular burdens and difficulties of the working class.

The Industrial Revolution was a time of rapid social change, when large numbers of people were
moving from an agricultural life in rural areas to manufacturing jobs in urban areas. Technological
advances and a wage-based economy promised an age of prosperity and abundance, but they created
new kinds of poverty, crime, and disease. Marx believed that most of those problems were a result of
capitalism, the emerging economic system based on the private for-profit operation of industry. He
proposed a radical alternative to the inherent inequalities of this system in the Manifesto of the
Communist Party (1848), perhaps his most famous book.

In industrial society, the forces of capitalism were creating distinct social and economic classes,
exacerbating the disparities between the wealthy and the poor. Marx felt that this would inevitably
lead to class struggle between those who owned the means of production (anything that could create
more wealth: money, property, factories, other types of businesses) and those who worked for them.
He argued that the most important factor in social life was whether someone was a worker, and thus a
member of the proletariat, or an owner, and thus a member of the bourgeoisie. Everything of value in
society resulted from human labor, which was the proletariat’s most valuable asset. Yet workers
suffered from what Marx called alienation because they were unable to directly benefit from the fruits
of their own labor. Workers were paid wages, but it was the factory owners who grew rich as a result
of their toil.

The powerful few in the bourgeoisie not only were wealthy but also enjoyed social privilege and
power. They were able to protect their interests, preserve their positions, and pass along their
advantages to their heirs. The proletariat were often so absorbed in making a living that they were less
apt to protest the conditions that led to their oppression. But eventually, Marx believed, the oppression
would become unbearable, and the proletariat would rise up against the bourgeoisie, abolishing
capitalism for good. He envisioned in capitalism’s place a classless society with no private ownership
in which each person contributed to and benefited from the public good. Freed from oppressive
conditions, individuals would then be able to pursue higher interests such as art and education and
eventually live in a more egalitarian, utopian society. But in order to achieve such a state, the
oppressed must first recognize how the current system worked against them.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Eurocentrism and Sociological Theory
You might get the impression from this chapter that the major sociological theorists were all either
European or American. In fact, some ideas central to sociological theory were proposed in Asia,
Africa, and the Middle East centuries before Marx, Weber, and Durkheim were even born, but we give
these Western thinkers all the credit. Why?

Both the social world and social theory are often Eurocentric: They tend to privilege Europe and the
West over other cultures. This means that hierarchies of global power, in which superpowers such as
the United States and former colonial rulers such as Britain and France dominate, are replicated in
academic disciplines like sociology. Scholars who work against inequality and exploitation should
note this distressing irony.

One influential non-Western thinker was Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), an Arab Muslim philosopher and
politician who lived in fourteenth-century North Africa. His coining of the term as sabiyah, or “social
cohesion,” precedes Durkheim’s work on the same subject by more than 500 years, and his argument
that larger social and historical forces shape individual lives predates Mills’s insight about sociology
as “the intersection of biography and history” by almost 600 years! Yet Khaldun is rarely credited for
proposing sociology as a discipline—ilm alumran, he called it, or “the science of civilization.” This
honor is reserved for French scholar Auguste Comte, working centuries later in the West.
 Ibn Khaldun

Also overlooked in conventional histories of sociology are Indian scholar Benoy Sarkar (1887–1949),
Filipino activist and poet José Rizal (1861–1896), and Japanese folklorist Kunio Yanagita (1875–
1962)—all of whom applied sociological insights to the problems of their nations. Sarkar explored
India’s religious divisions, Rizal analyzed the Philippines’ fight for independence from Spain, and
Yanagita used qualitative methods to explore Japan’s culture and its long-standing isolationism. They
have received virtually no notice for their achievements outside their own countries (Alatas and Sinha
2001).

Filipino sociologist Clarence Batan (2004) argues that Western theorists like Marx, Weber, and
Durkheim may inspire non-Western scholars but that their theories arose in response to specific social
problems that were particular to Western societies. Non-Western societies face different issues,
including the legacy of colonialism imposed by the Western countries from which those classical
sociological theories sprang. Batan calls for sociologists in non-Western countries to respond to the
needs of their societies by developing new theoretical frameworks that take postcolonial realities into
account. Batan himself, along with other contemporary non-Western sociologists, works toward this
goal every day in his research and teaching. Shouldn’t your sociology professors do the same?
In 1849, Marx withdrew from political activity in order to concentrate on writing Das Kapital (edited
by Engels and published in 1890). The multivolume work provided a thorough exposition of his
program for social change, which later became the foundation of political systems such as
communism and socialism. Because Marx held such radical beliefs, his ideas were not immediately
embraced by sociologists in general. It was not until the 1960s, when conflict theory became a
dominant perspective, that Marx was truly received as a giant of sociology.

ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES
Conflict theory proposes that conflict and tension are basic facts of social life and suggests that people
have disagreements over goals and values and are involved in struggles over both resources and
power. The theory thus focuses on the processes of dominance, competition, upheaval, and social
change.

Conflict theory takes a materialist view of society (focused on labor practices and economic reality)
and extends it to other social inequalities. Marx maintained that economic productivity is related to
other processes in society, including political and intellectual life. The wealthy and powerful
bourgeoisie control major social institutions, reinforcing the class structure so that the state, education,
religion, and even the family are organized to represent their interests. Conflict theory takes a critical
stance toward existing social arrangements and attempts to expose their inner workings.

Because the ideology, or belief system, that permeates society arises from the values of the ruling
class, beliefs that seem to be widely held are actually a kind of justification that helps rationalize and
explain the status quo. Most people readily accept the prevailing ideology, despite its failure to
represent the reality of their lives. Marx referred to this acceptance as false consciousness, a denial of
the truth that allows for the perpetuation of the inequalities inherent in the class structure. For
example, he is often quoted as saying, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” This is not a criticism of
religion so much as a criticism of the use of religion to create false consciousness in the working class.
Encouraged in their piety, the proletariat focus on the happiness promised in the afterlife rather than
on deprivations suffered in this world. Indeed, heaven is seen as a reward for patiently suffering those
deprivations. How does this serve the interests of the ruling class? By keeping the working class from
demanding better conditions in this life.

Conflict theory sees the transformation of society over time as inevitable. Marx argued that the only
way to change the status quo is for the masses to attain class consciousness, or revolutionary
consciousness. This can happen only when people recognize how society works and challenge those
in power. He believed that social change would occur when there was enough tension and conflict.

OFFSHOOTS
Marx’s work has been reinterpreted and applied in various ways, and conflict theory has evolved
within the greater intellectual community. Despite Marx’s single-minded focus on economic
exploitation and transformation, his ideas have helped inspire theorists interested in all forms of power
and inequality.

One of the most widely adopted forms of modern Marxism is called critical theory (also sometimes
referred to as the Frankfurt School or neo-Marxism). From the 1930s to the 1960s, critical theory was
arguably at the cutting edge of social theory. Critical theorists were among the first to see the
importance of mass communications and popular culture as powerful ideological tools in capitalist
societies. They coined the term “culture industries” to refer to these increasingly important social
institutions, which came to dominate and permeate social life (Adorno and Horkheimer 1979). They
also criticized the growing consumerism associated with the spread of capitalism, believing that it
could ultimately lead to a decline in personal freedom and the decay of democracy (Marcuse
1964/1991). Critical theory influenced several generations of radical thinkers throughout Europe and
the United States, inspiring the cultural studies movement and the postmodernists, who were
considered the cutting edge of social theory in the 1980s and ’90s (Habermas 1984, 1987).

Other modern perspectives have taken conflict theory’s insights on economic inequality and adapted
them to the study of contemporary inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality (Collins 2019; Crenshaw
et al. 1996; Matsuda et al. 1993). Beginning with the pioneering work of W.E.B. Du Bois, sociology
started to focus on inequalities of race and ethnicity, inspiring important studies about the causes and
consequences of prejudice and discrimination and helping propel momentous social changes resulting
from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Critical race theory, which emerged out of legal
scholarship in the 1970s and ’80s, is concerned with the relationship among race, racism, and power.
This controversial theory argues that racism is deeply embedded in American institutions, including
our laws. This institutional racism serves to both perpetuate white privilege and marginalize people of
color. Adherents of critical race theory are dedicated to not just studying race—and how it intersects
with other identities such as sex and class—but also actively working to end racial oppression
(Bonilla-Silva 2015; Delgado and Stefancic 2012). We will return to critical race theory in more detail
in Chapter 8.

bell hooks Feminist theorists such as bell hooks consider the intersection of gender and race.

Feminist theory developed alongside the twentieth-century women’s rights movement. By applying
assumptions about gender inequality to various social institutions—the family, education, the
economy, or the media—feminist theory allows for a new way of understanding those institutions and
the changing role of gender in contemporary society. Theorists such as Judith Butler (1999), bell
hooks (2003), and Catharine MacKinnon (2005) link gender with inequality in other social hierarchies
—race and ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation—and argue that gender and power are inextricably
intertwined in our society.

The gay and lesbian rights movement that gained momentum in the 1970s and ’80s inspired a new set
of theoretical and conceptual tools for social scientists: queer theory. Queer theory proposes that
categories of sexuality—homo, hetero, bi, trans—should be viewed as “social constructs” (Seidman
2003). It asserts that no sexual category is fundamentally deviant or normal; we create such
definitions, so we can change them as well. Indeed, some queer theorists argue that strict categories
themselves are no longer relevant and that more fluid notions of identity should replace conventional
dichotomies such as gay/straight (Garber 1997). We will return to both feminist and queer theories in
more detail in Chapter 9.

ADVANTAGES AND CRITIQUES

One of Karl Marx’s great contributions to the social sciences is the principle of praxis, or practical
action: Intellectuals should act on what they believe. Marx wished not only to describe the world but
also to change it. Indeed, Marxist ideas have been important in achieving change through many
twentieth-century social movements, including civil rights, antiwar, women’s rights, gay rights,
animal rights, environmentalism, and multiculturalism. If these groups had not protested the status
quo, we might never have addressed some of the century’s social problems. Conflict theory is useful in
understanding not only macro-level social issues (such as systematic discrimination against minority
groups) but also micro-level personal interactions (such as those between bosses and employees).

Conflict theory stands in sharp contrast to structural functionalism. Conflict theory argues that a social
arrangement’s existence does not mean that it’s beneficial; it may merely represent the interests of
those in power. The theory challenges the status quo and emphasizes the need for social upheaval. In
focusing on tension and conflict, however, conflict theory can often ignore those parts of society that
are truly orderly, stable, and enduring. Although society certainly has its share of disagreements, there
are also shared values and common beliefs that hold it together. Conflict theory can be criticized for
overlooking these less controversial dimensions of social reality.
Weberian Theory
Max Weber (1864–1920) was another important European macrosociological theorist during the
Industrial Revolution. His work forms another large branch of sociology’s family tree, and his ideas
continue to inspire in their current application, yet he is not always included among the three major
branches of the discipline. Weberian theory is not a minor branch of sociology, nor is it considered
merely an offshoot of one of the other major branches of the tree. It draws from a background shared
by the other macro theorists but forms its own independent limb.

Max Weber

Weber grew up in the German city of Berlin. Both his parents were Protestants and descendants of
victims of religious persecution. Weber, though not religious himself, exhibited the relentless work
ethic held in high regard by devout Protestants. Although he was sickly and withdrawn as a young
man, work served as a way for him to rebel against his father and the leisure classes in general. He
studied law and history and worked as a lawyer while establishing his credentials for a university
teaching position.

Weber rapidly established himself as a prominent member of the German intellectual scene. He might
have continued in this manner had it not been for a disastrous visit from his parents in 1897, during
which Weber fought bitterly with his father and threw him out of the house. When his father died a
month later, Weber suffered a nervous breakdown that left him unable to work for several years. The
strain of these events and years of incessant labor had apparently caught up with him. He eventually
recovered and resumed his intense scholarship, but the breakdown left Weber disillusioned with the
strict academic regimen.

Weber subsequently expressed a pessimistic view of social forces, such as the work ethic, that shaped
modern life. Like other social theorists of his time, Weber was interested in the shift from a more
traditional society to a modern industrial one. Perhaps his most overriding concern was with the
process of rationalization, or the application of economic logic to all spheres of human activity. In
Economy and Society (1921), Weber proposed that modern industrialized societies were characterized
by efficient, goal-oriented, rule-governed bureaucracies. He believed that individual behavior was
increasingly driven by such bureaucratic goals, which had become more important motivational
factors than traditions, values, or emotions. Weber’s classic sociological discussion of the origins of
the capitalist system, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–1905), concluded with
the image of people trapped by their industrious way of life in what he called an iron cage of
bureaucratic rules. He believed that contemporary life was filled with disenchantment (similar to
Durkheim’s concept of anomie and Marx’s concept of alienation) as the inevitable result of the
dehumanizing features of the bureaucracies that dominated the modern social landscape.

Weber’s insights into the nature of society continue to inspire sociologists today. For instance, George
Ritzer (1996, 2013) has applied Weber’s theories of bureaucracy and rationalization to the fast-food
industry and has warned about “McDonaldization” creeping into other aspects of contemporary life,
such as education and law enforcement. More recently, Ritzer has applied Weberian theory to the
forces of globalization, demonstrating how the principles of McDonaldization have been exported and
adopted across the globe (Ritzer and Ryan 2007).

The key concepts we have touched on here will be expanded as we apply Weberian theory to a variety
of topics in upcoming chapters. In addition to making some of the most important contributions to
theory within the discipline, Weber was also influential in improving research methods by suggesting
that researchers avoid imposing their own opinions on their scientific analysis; we’ll examine these
ideas more closely in Chapter 2.

Weber’s work served as a bridge between early social theory, which focused primarily on the macro
level of society, and subsequent theories that focused more intently on the micro level. He was
interested in how individual motivation led to certain social actions and how those actions helped
shape society as a whole. Unlike Marx and Durkheim, Weber was cautious about attributing any
reality to social institutions or forces independent of individual action and meaningful thought. He
invoked the German term verstehen (“empathic understanding”) to describe how a social scientist
should study human action: that is, with a kind of scientific empathy for actors’ experiences,
intentions, and actions. In this way, Weber helped lay the groundwork for the third grand theory in
sociology.
Glossary
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
a paradigm based on the assumption that society is a unified whole that functions because of the
contributions of its separate structures
SOLIDARITY
the degree of integration or unity within a particular society; the extent to which individuals feel
connected to other members of their group
MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY
the type of social bonds present in premodern, agrarian societies, in which shared traditions and
beliefs created a sense of social cohesion
ORGANIC SOLIDARITY
the type of social bonds present in modern societies, based on difference, interdependence, and
individual rights
ANOMIE
“normlessness”; term used to describe the alienation and loss of purpose that result from weaker
social bonds and an increased pace of change
SACRED
the holy, divine, or supernatural
PROFANE
the ordinary, mundane, or everyday
EMPIRICAL
based on scientific experimentation or observation
STRUCTURE
a social institution that is relatively stable over time and that meets the needs of a society by
performing functions necessary to maintain social order and stability
DYSFUNCTION
a disturbance to or undesirable consequence of some aspect of the social system
MANIFEST FUNCTIONS
the obvious, intended functions of a social structure for the social system
LATENT FUNCTIONS
the less obvious, perhaps unintended functions of a social structure
CONFLICT THEORY
a paradigm that sees social conflict as the basis of society and social change and that emphasizes
a materialist view of society, a critical view of the status quo, and a dynamic model of historical
change
MEANS OF PRODUCTION
anything that can create wealth: money, property, factories, and other types of businesses, and
the infrastructure necessary to run them
PROLETARIAT
workers; those who have no means of production of their own and so are reduced to selling their
labor power in order to live
EUROCENTRIC
the tendency to favor European or Western histories, cultures, and values over those of non-
Western societies
BOURGEOISIE
owners; the class of modern capitalists who own the means of production and employ wage
laborers
ALIENATION
 the sense of dissatisfaction the modern worker feels as a result of producing goods that are
owned and controlled by someone else
FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS
a denial of the truth on the part of the oppressed when they fail to recognize that the interests of
the ruling class are embedded in the dominant ideology
CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS
the recognition of social inequality on the part of the oppressed, leading to revolutionary action
CRITICAL THEORY
a contemporary form of conflict theory that criticizes many different systems and ideologies of
domination and oppression
CRITICAL RACE THEORY
the study of the relationship among race, racism, and power
FEMINIST THEORY
a theoretical approach that looks at gender inequities in society and the way that gender
structures the social world
QUEER THEORY
social theory about gender and sexual identity; emphasizes the importance of difference and
rejects ideas of innate identities or restrictive categories
PRAXIS
the application of theory to practical action in an effort to improve aspects of society
RATIONALIZATION
the application of economic logic to human activity; the use of formal rules and regulations in
order to maximize efficiency without consideration of subjective or individual concerns
BUREAUCRACY
a type of secondary group designed to perform tasks efficiently, characterized by specialization,
technical competence, hierarchy, written rules, impersonality, and formal written
communication
IRON CAGE
Max Weber’s pessimistic description of modern life, in which we are caught in bureaucratic
structures that control our lives through rigid rules and rationalization
VERSTEHEN
“empathic understanding”; Weber’s term to describe good social research, which tries to
understand the meanings that individuals attach to various aspects of social reality
MICROSOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
As the twentieth century dawned and the careers of the macro theorists such as Durkheim, Marx, and Weber
matured, political, cultural, and academic power began to shift from Europe. As manifested by the waves of
emigrants leaving the Old World for the New World, America was seen as the land of opportunity, both
material and intellectual. So it was in the twentieth century, and increasingly in the United States, that the
discipline of sociology continued to develop and the ideas of its third major school of thought began to
coalesce.
Symbolic Interactionism
Sociology’s third grand theory, symbolic interactionism (or interactionist theory), proved its greatest
influence through much of the 1900s. It is America’s unique contribution to the discipline and an answer to
many of the criticisms of other paradigms. Symbolic interactionism helps us explain both our individual
personalities and the ways in which we are all linked together; it allows us to understand the processes by
which social order and social change are constructed. As a theoretical perspective, it is vital, versatile, and
still evolving.

FOUNDER AND KEY CONTRIBUTIONS

Symbolic interactionism is derived largely from the teachings of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). But
there were many others involved in the development of this particular school of thought, and it is worthwhile
to examine the social context in which they lived and worked.

George Herbert Mead

At the start of the twentieth century, sociology was still something of an import from the European
intellectual scene, and American practitioners had just begun developing their own ideas regarding the
nature and workings of society. The University of Chicago in the 1920s provided a stimulating intellectual
setting for a handful of academics who built on one another’s work and advanced what became known as the
first new major branch within the discipline. Since there were so few social theorists in the country, the head
of the department, Albion Small, a philosopher by training, recruited professors from various eastern
colleges who had often studied other disciplines such as theology and psychology. The fledgling sociology
department grew to include such influential members as Robert Park, W. I. Thomas, Charles Horton Cooley,
and later George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer. This group, the theories they developed together, and
the way they went about studying the social world are frequently referred to (either individually or
collectively) as the Chicago School of sociology.
ON THE JOB
Famous Sociology Majors
Sociology continues to be a popular major at colleges and universities in the United States and in countries
such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2019),
over a half million bachelor of arts degrees in sociology were awarded in the United States between 1990
and 2018. Clearly, there are many reasons students are enthusiastic about the subject. What may be less clear
is how to turn this passion into a paycheck. Students considering majoring in the subject often ask, “What
can I do with a degree in sociology?” Their parents may be asking the same question.

Students interested in academic careers can pursue graduate degrees and become professors and researchers
—real practicing sociologists. But the vast majority of sociology majors will not necessarily become
sociologists with a capital “S.” Their studies have prepared them to be valuable, accomplished participants
in a variety of fields, including law and government, business administration, social welfare, public health,
education, counseling and human resources, advertising and marketing, public relations and the media, and
the nonprofit sector. A major in sociology, in other words, can lead almost anywhere. And while the roster of
former sociology majors contains names both well known and unsung—from President Ronald Reagan,
Pulitzer and Nobel Prize–winning author Saul Bellow, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. to the
public defender giving legal aid to low-income clients and the health-care professional bringing wellness
programs into large corporations—we will focus here on three important Americans you may not have
associated with sociology.

Our first profile is of Michelle Robinson Obama (b. 1964), the first African American First Lady of the
United States. Michelle Obama has become one of the most recognizable and widely admired sociology
majors in the world, using her role as First Lady to fight childhood obesity, help working mothers and
military families, and encourage public service. Born and raised in working-class Chicago, she can trace her
ancestry to enslaved people on both sides of her family tree. Her father worked for the city’s water
department but saw both of his children graduate from Princeton University and go on to successful
professional careers. After obtaining her BA in sociology—her senior thesis dealt with alienation
experienced by African American students in an Ivy League institution—she earned her law degree at
Harvard, worked at a prestigious law firm in Chicago, and then served in the mayor’s office. In addition to
law and politics, her choice of majors was a critical stepping-stone on her way to success.

Our next sociology major is Kalpen Modi (b. 1977), who served as an associate director with the White
House Office of Public Engagement (OPE) in 2009. In this role, he acted as a liaison to young Americans,
the arts, and Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. He also served on the President’s
Committee on the Arts and Humanities. This may come as a surprise to those who know him as the actor
Kal Penn, most famous for his role as the wisecracking, easygoing stoner Kumar in the Harold and Kumar
film series or as Kevin on How I Met Your Mother. As an actor, Penn has been critical of the racial and
ethnic stereotypes often associated with playing a person of South Asian descent. At one point, he nearly
turned down a recurring role as a terrorist on the TV drama 24 because he didn’t want to reinforce the
negative “connection between media images and people’s thought processes” (Yuan 2007). While it might
be easy to make similar claims against Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, one of his co-stars defended
the film by arguing that it “approached the level of sociology, albeit scatological, sexually obsessed
sociology,” as “it probed questions of ethnic identity, conformism and family expectations versus personal
satisfaction” (Garvin 2008, p. M1). In his new memoir, You Can’t Be Serious (2021), Penn discusses his
New Jersey childhood; his experiences in Hollywood, including the constant racial microaggressions; and
his time in the White House. As Penn explains, “This book is for anyone who has ever wondered if it’s
possible to have more than one calling” (Rankin 2021). Penn continues to juggle politics with acting,
reflecting a deep commitment to sociological ideals and a desire to use his influence to help build more
positive media portrayals of minorities.
Our last sociology major is the poet and activist Amanda Gorman (b. 1998), who rose to fame with her
breakout performance at President Biden’s inauguration. Gorman, who graduated from Harvard in 2020 with
a degree in sociology, was the first person to be named National Youth Poet Laureate. She was asked to
recite an original poem at the inauguration after Jill Biden saw a video of one of her performances. In the
weeks leading up to the inauguration, she struggled to put pen to paper. But on January 6, 2021, after
watching pro-Trump rioters storm the Capitol, she stayed up late and finally finished “The Hill We Climb.”
The poem, which references the violence of January 6, was inspired by the words of historic leaders like
Martin Luther King Jr. (another sociology major) and Abraham Lincoln, as well as the Broadway musical
Hamilton. It’s also very sociological in nature: Throughout the poem, Gorman reflects on the intersection
between history and biography and the way social forces shape our lives. In a nod to her own personal
biography, she highlights that her ancestors were enslaved and that she was raised by a single mother. Even
more importantly, though, she highlights how people can shape their societies in turn. Biden’s inauguration
is not the only presidential inauguration this sociology major hopes to attend: She plans to run for president
in 2036.

Regardless of whether you go any further in this discipline—or if you end up working in politics, the arts, or
public service—the most important thing to take away from an introductory sociology class is a sociological
perspective. Sociology promises a new way of looking at, thinking about, and taking action in the world
around us, which will serve you well no matter where you find yourself in the future.
Michelle Obama
Kal Penn
 Amanda Gorman

Chicago was in many ways a frontier city in the early twentieth century. Rapidly transformed by
industrialization, immigration, and ethnic diversity, Chicago became a unique laboratory in which to practice
a new type of sociology that differed both theoretically and methodologically from the European models.
Instead of doing comparative and historical work like the macro theorists before them, the members of the
Chicago School went out into the city to conduct interviews and collect observational data. Their studies
were particularly inspired by Max Weber’s concept of verstehen as the proper attitude to adopt in the field.
Their focus was on the micro level of everyday interactions (such as race relations in urban neighborhoods)
as the building blocks of larger social phenomena (such as racial inequality).

The new school of thought was strongly influenced by a philosophical perspective called pragmatism,
developed largely by William James and John Dewey, which was gaining acceptance among American
social theorists in the early 1900s. To James, pragmatism meant seeking the truth of an idea by evaluating its
usefulness in everyday life; in other words, if it works, it’s true! He thought that living in the world involved
making practical adaptations to whatever we encountered; if those adaptations made our lives run more
smoothly, then the ideas behind them must be both useful and true. James’s ideas inspired educational
psychologist and philosopher John Dewey, who also grappled with pragmatism’s main questions: How do
we adapt to our environments? How do we acquire the knowledge that allows us to act in our everyday
lives? Unlike the social Darwinists, pragmatists implied that the process of adaptation is essentially
immediate and that it involves conscious thought. George Herbert Mead would be the one who eventually
pulled these ideas (and others, too) together into a theory meant to address questions about the relationship
between thought and action, the individual and society.

Mead came from a progressive family and grew up in the Midwest and Northeast during the late 1800s.
Mead attended college at Oberlin and Harvard and did his graduate studies in psychology at the universities
of Leipzig and Berlin in Germany. Before he became a full-time professor of psychology at the University of
Michigan and later the University of Chicago, Mead waited tables and did railroad surveying and
construction work. He was also a tutor to William James’s family in Cambridge, Massachusetts; since his
later theories were influenced by James, we can only wonder exactly who was tutoring whom in this
arrangement! Mead’s background and training uniquely positioned him to bridge the gap between sociology
and psychology and to address the links between the individual and society.

Mead proposed that both human development and the meanings we assign to everyday objects and events
are fundamentally social processes; they require the interaction of multiple individuals. And what is crucial
to the development of self and society is language, the means by which we communicate with one another.
For Mead, there is no mind without language, and language itself is a product of social interactions (1934,
pp. 191–192). According to Mead, the most important human behaviors consist of linguistic “gestures,” such
as words and facial expressions. People develop the ability to engage in conversation using these gestures;
further, both society and individual selves are constructed through this kind of symbolic communication.
Mead argued that we use language to “name ourselves, think about ourselves, talk to ourselves, and feel
proud or ashamed of ourselves” and that “we can act toward ourselves in all the ways we can act toward
others” (Hewitt 2000, p. 10). He was curious about how the mind develops but did not believe that it
develops separately from its social environment. For Mead, then, society and self are created through
communicative acts such as speech and gestures; the individual personality is shaped by society, and vice
versa.
 Herbert Blumer

Herbert Blumer (1900–1987), a graduate student and later a professor at the University of Chicago, was
closely associated with Mead and was largely credited with continuing Mead’s life’s work. Blumer appealed
for researchers to get “down and dirty” with the dynamics of social life. He also published a clear and
compelling series of works based on Mead’s fundamental ideas. After Mead’s death in 1931, Blumer gave
Mead’s theory the name it now goes by: symbolic interactionism. Thus, Mead and Blumer became the
somewhat unwitting founders of a much larger theoretical perspective. Blumer’s long career at the
University of Chicago and later at the University of California, Berkeley, ensured the training of many future
scholars and secured the inclusion of symbolic interactionism as one of the major schools of thought within
the discipline.
Despite its geographical location in a city full of real-world inequality (or perhaps because of it), the
Chicago School of sociology had very few women or people of color among its membership. Take W.E.B.
Du Bois and Jane Addams, for example: These two scholars were neither students nor faculty members at
the University of Chicago, although both are often associated with Chicago School perspectives, values, and
methods. Both led the way for other minorities and women to become influential scholars in the discipline of
sociology.

W.E.B. Du Bois

William Edward Burghardt (W.E.B.) Du Bois (1868–1963) was a notable pioneer in the study of race
relations as a professor of sociology at Atlanta University and one of the most influential African American
leaders of his time. After becoming the first African American to earn a PhD from Harvard University, Du
Bois did groundbreaking research on the history of the slave trade, post–Civil War Reconstruction, the
problems of urban ghetto life, and the nature of Black American society. Du Bois was so brilliant and
prolific that it is often said that all subsequent studies of race and racial inequality in America depend to
some degree on his work.

Throughout his life, Du Bois was involved in various forms of social activism. He was an indispensable
forerunner in the civil rights movement; among his many civic and political achievements, Du Bois was a
founding member, in 1909, of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
an organization committed to the cause of ending racism and racial injustice. Because of his antiracist,
antipoverty, and antiwar activism, Du Bois was targeted by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and Senator
Joseph McCarthy as a communist. However, he did not become a member of the Communist Party until he
was ninety-three years old, and then only did so as a form of political protest against the persecution of its
members by the U.S. government. Eventually, Du Bois became disillusioned by the persistent injustices of
American society and emigrated to Ghana, where he died at ninety-five, one year before the historic Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law.

Jane Addams

Jane Addams (1860–1935) was another pioneer in the field of sociology whose numerous accomplishments
range from the halls of academia to the forefront of social activism. Though she never officially joined the
faculty because she feared it would curtail her political activism, Addams did teach extension courses at the
University of Chicago and was among a handful of women teaching in American universities at the time.
Though not a mother herself, Addams believed that women have a special kind of responsibility for solving
social problems because they are trained to care for others. She was one of the first proponents of applied
sociology—addressing the most pressing problems of her day through hands-on work with the people and
places that were the subject of her research. This practical approach is perhaps best demonstrated by Hull
House, the Chicago community center she established in 1889 to offer shelter, medical care, legal advice,
training, and education to new immigrants, single mothers, and the poor. As a result of her commitment to
delivering support and services where they were most needed, Addams is often considered the founder of
what is now a separate field outside the discipline: social work. Addams also helped found two important
organizations that continue to fight for freedom and equality today: the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and, along with W.E.B. Du Bois, the NAACP. She served as the president of the Women’s
International League for Peace and Freedom and in 1931 became the first American woman to receive the
Nobel Peace Prize.

ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES
For symbolic interactionists, society is produced and reproduced through our interactions with each other by
means of language and our interpretations of that language. Symbolic interactionism sees face-to-face
interaction as the building block of everything else in society, because it is through interaction that we create
a meaningful social reality.

Here are the three basic tenets of symbolic interactionism, as laid out by Blumer (1969, p. 2). First, we act
toward things on the basis of their meanings. For example, a tree can provide a shady place to rest, or it can
be an obstacle to building a road or home; each of these meanings suggests a different set of actions. This is
as true for physical objects like trees as it is for people (like mothers or cops), institutions (church or school),
beliefs (honesty or equality), or any social activity. Second, meanings are not inherent; rather, they are
negotiated through interaction with others. That is, whether the tree is an obstacle or an oasis is not an
intrinsic quality of the tree itself but rather something that people must figure out among themselves. The
same tree can mean one thing to one person and something else to another. And third, meanings can change
or be modified through interaction. For example, the contractor who sees the tree as an obstacle might be
persuaded to spare it by the neighbor who appreciates its shade. Now the tree means the same thing to both
of them: It is something to protect and build around rather than to condemn and bulldoze.

Symbolic interactionism proposes that social facts exist only because we create and re-create them through
our interactions; this gives the theory wide explanatory power and a versatility that allows it to address any
sociological issue. Although symbolic interactionism is focused on how self and society develop through
interaction with others, it is useful in explaining and analyzing a wide variety of specific social issues, from
inequalities of race and gender to the group dynamics of families or co-workers.

OFFSHOOTS
Symbolic interactionism opened the door for innovative sociologists who focused on social acts (such as
face-to-face interaction) rather than social facts (such as vast bureaucratic institutions). They were able to
extend the field in a variety of ways, allowing new perspectives to come under the umbrella of symbolic
interactionism.
 Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman (1922–1982) furthered symbolic interactionist conceptions of the self in a seemingly
radical way, indicating that the self is essentially “on loan” to us from society; it is created through
interaction with others and hence ever changing within various social contexts. For example, you may want
to make a different kind of impression on a first date than you do on a job interview or when you face an
opponent in a game of poker. Goffman used the theatrical metaphor of dramaturgy to describe the ways in
which we engage in a strategic presentation of ourselves to others. In this way, he elaborated on Mead’s
ideas in a specific fashion, utilizing a wide range of data to help support his arguments.

Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology (the study of “folk methods,” or everyday analysis of
interaction), maintains that as members of society we must acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to act
practically in our everyday lives (Garfinkel 1967). He argues that much of this knowledge remains in the
background, “seen but unnoticed,” and that we assume that others have the same knowledge we do when we
interact with them. These assumptions allow us to make meaning out of even seemingly troublesome or
ambiguous events; but such shared understandings can also be quite precarious, and there is a good deal of
work required to sustain them, even as we are unaware that we are doing so.

Conversation analysis, pioneered by sociologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, is also related
to symbolic interactionism. It is based on the ethnomethodological idea that as everyday actors we are
constantly analyzing and giving meaning to our social world (Clayman 2002; Heritage and Clayman 2010;
Schegloff 1986, 1999, 2007). Conversation analysts are convinced that the best place to look for the social
processes of meaning production is in naturally occurring conversation and that the best way to get at the
meanings an everyday actor gives to the things others say and do is to look closely at how the actor
responds. Conversation analysts therefore use highly technical methods to scrutinize each conversational
turn closely, operating on the assumption that any larger social phenomenon is constructed step-by-step
through interaction.

ADVANTAGES AND CRITIQUES

As society changes, so must the discipline that studies it, and symbolic interactionism has invigorated
sociology in ways that are linked to the past and looking toward the future. The founding of symbolic
interactionism provided a new and different way of looking at the world. It is “the only perspective that
assumes an active, expressive model of the human actor and that treats the individual and the social at the
same level of analysis” (O’Brien and Kollock 1997, p. 39). Therein lies much of its power and its appeal.

As a new school of thought focusing on the micro level of society, symbolic interactionism was not always
met with immediate approval by the academy. Over time, symbolic interactionism has been integrated
relatively seamlessly into sociology, and its fundamental precepts have become widely accepted. During the
second half of the twentieth century, the scope of symbolic interactionism widened, its topics multiplied, and
its theoretical linkages became more varied. In fact, there was some concern that symbolic interactionism
was expanding so much that it risked erupting into something else entirely (Fine 1993). One of symbolic
interactionism’s most enduring contributions is in the area of research methods. Practices such as
ethnography and conversation analysis are data rich, technically complex, and empirically well grounded
(Katz 1997; Schegloff 1999), giving us new insights into perennial questions about social life.

As a relative newcomer to the field of social theory, symbolic interactionism was dubbed “the loyal
opposition” (Mullins 1973) by those who saw it solely as a reaction or as merely a supplement to the more
dominant macrosociological theories that preceded it. Gary Fine sums up the critiques in this way: Symbolic
interactionism is “apolitical (and hence, supportive of the status quo), unscientific (hence, little more than
tenured journalism), hostile to the classical questions of macrosociology (hence, limited to social
psychology), and astructural (hence, fundamentally nonsociological)” (1993, p. 65). Critics argue that the
scope of symbolic interactionism is limited, that it cannot address the most important sociological issues,
and that its authority is restricted to the study of face-to-face interaction.

Each of these critiques has been answered over the years. Ultimately, some critics have seen the usefulness
of an interactionist perspective and have even begun incorporating it into more macro work. Even in the
hotly contested micro-versus-macro debate, a kind of détente has been established, recognizing that all
levels of analysis are necessary for sociological understanding and that interactionist theories and methods
are critical for a full picture of social life.
DATA WORKSHOP

Analyzing Media and Pop Culture

Theories of Celebrity Gossip

TMZ, which debuted in 2005, has become one of the most popular celebrity gossip websites in the world. It
is consistently among the top 100 sites (of any kind) in the United States, with upward of 25 million unique
visitors a month. TMZ provides users with up-to-the-minute pop culture news, publishing hundreds of posts
each day that expose the real and rumored doings of celebrities. It has become the go-to site anytime a
celebrity gets arrested, dies, goes to rehab, cheats, or behaves badly in some other way.

TMZ is part of a new breed of celebrity gossip outlets, including PerezHilton, ONTD, Radar Online,
Dlisted, and PopSugar, that have radically transformed the way that celebrities and other public figures are
covered in the media. These sites are providing more coverage than ever and at greater speed. Stories that
used to take at least a week to appear in pre-digital-era print magazines such as People or Us Weekly can
now be posted online nearly instantaneously. That sometimes puts gossip sites on the forefront of breaking
news. For instance, TMZ was the first outlet to report the news of the helicopter crash that killed Kobe
Bryant and his daughter Gianna in 2020.

It’s not just the volume or speed of delivery that’s different; celebrity gossip sites are changing the substance
of the coverage as well. Print magazines or mainstream television programs such as Entertainment Tonight
or E! News used to provide mostly flattering coverage of celebrities. They were unwilling to report too many
negative stories because they relied on the goodwill of celebrities to gain access into their lives. This tends
to remain the rule in entertainment news, where there is still no shortage of promotional puff pieces and
lightweight fare without much bite.

Gossip sites such as TMZ and others often take a harsher, more critical stance toward their subjects. They’ve
also started engaging in investigative journalism practices, something that was formerly reserved for the
mainstream news media. And they’re covering a wider range of “celebrities” that regularly includes
professional athletes as well as business executives and even political figures.

Whatever your opinion of tabloid news, which many people regard as just mean, stupid, or shallow, you
don’t have to enjoy celebrity gossip to see its sociological relevance. For this Data Workshop, we’d like you
to immerse yourself in the celebrity gossip site of your choice. Pick three stories to work with. Scrutinize the
pictures, read the headlines and text carefully, and review the reader comments. Then consider how you
might answer the following questions according to each of sociology’s three major schools of thought:

1. Structural Functionalism

What is the function (or functions) of celebrity gossip for society? What purpose(s) does it serve, and how
does it help society maintain stability and order? Discuss how notions of the sacred and profane are
characterized. Are there manifest and latent functions of celebrity gossip? And are there any dysfunctions in
it?
 Celebrity Gossip and Society Founded in 2005, TMZ is a leading purveyor of celebrity and
entertainment news.

2. Conflict Theory

What forms of inequality are revealed in celebrity gossip? In particular, what does it have to say about class,
race, gender, sexuality, body size, or other inequalities? Whose interests are being served and who gets
exploited? Who suffers and who benefits from celebrity gossip?

3. Symbolic Interactionism

What does celebrity gossip mean to society as a whole? What does it mean to individual members of
society? Can gossip have different meanings for different individuals or groups of individuals? How do
those meanings get constructed in interaction? And how does celebrity gossip shape and influence our
everyday lives?

There are two options for completing this Data Workshop:

PREP-PAIR-SHARE

Print out your three stories and bring them to class. Consider how each of the three sets of questions might
be applied. Jot down your thoughts and make note of particular images and text. Get together in groups of
two or three, and talk about your findings. How does each sociological theory fit with your examples? What
new insights were provided by each perspective?

DO-IT-YOURSELF

Select the material you will analyze, and answer each of the three sets of questions in a three-page essay.
Discuss the main principles of the three theoretical perspectives and explain how each can be applied. You
will want to include specific examples from your chosen stories to illustrate your points. Did the theories
overlap at all, or did they contradict each other? Was there any one theory you felt did a better or worse job
of explaining celebrity gossip? Attach the stories to your paper.
Glossary
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
a paradigm that sees interaction and meaning as central to society and assumes that meanings are not
inherent but are created through interaction
CHICAGO SCHOOL
a type of sociology practiced at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s that centered on
urban settings and field research methods
PRAGMATISM
a perspective that assumes organisms (including humans) make practical adaptations to their
environments; humans do this through cognition, interpretation, and interaction
DRAMATURGY
an approach pioneered by Erving Goffman in which social life is analyzed in terms of its similarities
to theatrical performance
ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
the study of “folk methods” and background knowledge that sustain a shared sense of reality in
everyday interactions
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
a sociological approach that looks at how we create meaning in naturally occurring conversation,
often by taping conversations and examining their transcripts
NEW THEORETICAL APPROACHES
Because the three major schools of thought and their offshoots all have weaknesses as well as
strengths, they will probably never fully explain the totality of social phenomena, even when
taken together. And because society itself is always changing, there are always new phenomena
to explain. So new perspectives will, and indeed must, continue to arise. In this section, we will
consider two more contemporary approaches: postmodernism and midrange theory. Both
approaches grew out of the deep groundwork established by the other major schools of thought
within sociology, while also expanding beyond the confines of the discipline for inspiration. Each
is a response to conditions both in the fast-changing social world around us and within the
ongoing intellectual dialogues taking place among those continuing to study our times and
ourselves.
Postmodern Theory
In the late twentieth century, some social thinkers looked at the proliferation of theories and data
and began to question whether we could ever know society or ourselves with any certainty. What
is truth, and who has the right to claim it? Or, for that matter, what is reality, and how can it be
known? In an era of increasing doubt and cynicism, has meaning become meaningless?
Postmodernism, a theory that encompasses a wide range of areas—from art and architecture, to
music and film, to communications and technology—addresses these and other questions.

The postmodern perspective developed primarily out of the French intellectual scene in the
second half of the twentieth century and is still associated with three of its most important
proponents. It’s probably worth noting that postmodernists themselves don’t really like that label,
but nonetheless Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007), and Michel
Foucault (1926–1984) are the major figures most often included in the group.

In order to understand postmodernism, we first need to juxtapose it with modernism, the

movement against which it reacted. Modernism is both a historical period and an ideological
stance that began with the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, or Age of Reason. Modernist
thought values scientific knowledge, a linear (or timeline-like) view of history, and a belief in the
universality of human nature. In postmodernism, on the other hand, there are no absolutes—no
claims to truth, reason, right, order, or stability. Everything is therefore relative—fragmented,
temporary, and contingent. Postmodernists believe that certainty is illusory and prefer to play
with the possibilities created by fluidity, complexity, multidimensionality, and even nonsense.
They propose that there are no universal human truths from which we can interpret the meaning
of existence. On one hand, postmodernism can be celebrated as a liberating influence that rescues
us from the stifling effects of rationality and tradition. On the other hand, it can be condemned as
a detrimental influence that imprisons us in a world of relativity, nihilism, and chaos.

Postmodernists are also critical of what they call “grand narratives,” overarching stories and
theories that justify dominant beliefs and give a (false) sense of order and coherence to the world.
Postmodernists are interested in deconstruction, or taking apart and examining these stories and
theories. For example, they claim that “factual” accounts of history are no more accurate than
those that might be found in fiction. They prefer the notion of mini-narratives, or small-scale
stories, that describe individual or group practices rather than narratives that attempt to be
universal or global. These mini-narratives can then be combined in a variety of ways, creating a
collage of meaning.
Jacques Derrida
Michel Foucault
 Jean Baudrillard

One way of understanding what postmodernism looks like is to examine how it has crept into our
popular culture. Hip-hop is an example of a postmodern art form. It is a hybrid that borrows from
other established genres, from rhythm-and-blues to rock and reggae. Hip-hop also takes samples
from existing songs, mixes these with new musical tracks, and overlays it all with rap lyrics,
resulting in a unique new sound. Mash-ups are another postmodern twist in music. Take, for
instance, the Grey Album by DJ Danger Mouse, which uses tracks from the Beatles’ classic
White Album and combines them with Jay-Z’s Black Album to create something wholly new yet
borrowed.

Table 1.1 Theory in Everyday Life

Case Study: College

Perspective Approach to Society Admissions in the United
States
 Case Study: College
Perspective Approach to Society Admissions in the United
States

Those who are admitted are

worthy and well qualified,
Assumes that society is a
while those who are not
Structural unified whole that functions
admitted do not deserve to be.
Functionalism because of the contributions
There are other places in
of its separate structures.
society for them besides the
university.

Admissions decisions may be

made on the basis of criteria
other than grades and scores.
Sees social conflict as the
For example, some applicants
basis of society and social
may get in because their
change and emphasizes a
parents are major university
Conflict Theory materialist view of society, a
donors, while others may get
critical view of the status quo,
in because of their talents in
and a dynamic model of
sports or music. Some may be
historical change.
denied admission based on
criteria like race, gender, or
sexuality.

University admissions
processes are all about self-
presentation and meaning-
making in interaction. How do
Asserts that interaction and applicants present themselves
meaning are central to society to impress the admissions
Symbolic
and assumes that meanings committee? How does the
Interactionism
are not inherent but are admissions committee
created through interaction. develop an understanding of
the kind of applicant it’s
looking for? How do
applicants interpret their
acceptances and rejections?
 Case Study: College
Perspective Approach to Society Admissions in the United
States

An acceptance doesn’t mean

you’re smart, and a rejection
Suggests that social reality is doesn’t mean you’re stupid;
Postmodernism diverse, pluralistic, and be careful of any “facts” you
constantly in flux. may be presented with, as
they are illusory and
contingent.

Sociologists are quick to criticize postmodernism for discarding the scientific method and the
knowledge they believe it has generated. Social leaders with a conservative agenda have been
suspicious of the postmodern impulse to dismiss moral standards. While it is clear that many
people criticize postmodernism, a much larger number are probably oblivious to it, which in
itself may be more damning than any other response.

Although it is not a widely practiced perspective, postmodernism has nevertheless gained

supporters. Those who challenge the status quo, whether in the arts, politics, or the academy, find
attractive postmodernism’s ability to embrace a multiplicity of powerful and promising
alternatives. At the very least, postmodernism allows us to question scientific ideals of clarity
and coherence, revealing inherent shortcomings and weaknesses in our current arguments and
providing a way toward a deeper, more nuanced understanding of social life. As one of the most
contemporary of the theoretical perspectives, postmodernism corresponds to the Information Age
and feels natural and intuitive for many students whose lives are immersed in this world. By
focusing on individuals and small-scale activities in which change happens on a local, limited
basis, postmodernism offers an alternative to such cultural trends as consumerism and
globalization. However unwelcome the theory might be to some critics, it is likely that the
postmodern shifts we have seen in society (in music and films, for example) will continue.
Midrange Theory
The second new theoretical approach is midrange theory. It shares some views with
postmodernism, especially in its preference for mini-narratives over sweeping statements or
“grand theories” made by the classical social theorists. Durkheim, Marx, and Weber all
developed their ideas during a period dominated by what Robert Merton calls “total sociological
systems” (1996, p. 46), which provided an overarching, comprehensive explanation of society as
a whole.

Merton feared that an uncritical reverence for classical theory and an excessive attachment to
tradition could impede the flow of new ideas and was just as likely to hold sociology back as to
advance it. Because classical theories sought to develop large-scale theoretical systems that
applied to the most macro level of society, they were often extremely difficult to test or research
in any practical way. As one critic lamented, too “many sociological products can—effectively
and unfortunately—be considered both bad science and bad literature” (Boudon 1991, p. 522).

To counter this tendency, Merton proposed that sociologists focus more on “theories of the
middle range.” Midrange (or middle range) theory is not a theory of something in particular, but
rather a style of theorizing. It is an attempt not so much to make the elusive micro-macro link,
but to strike a balance somewhere between those polarities, shifting both the sights and the
process of doing sociology. Work in this vein concentrates on incorporating research questions
and empirical data into smaller-scale theories that eventually build into a more comprehensive
body of sociological theory. Midrange theories are those “that lie between the minor but
necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-
inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain” the whole social world
(Merton 1996, p. 41).

Since the 1990s and 2000s, a host of sociologists have taken up the call to midrange theory, from
Annette Lareau’s study of the impact of parents’ social class on the lives of their children (2011),
to Dalton Conley’s work on racial identity (2000) and his examination of what constitutes leisure
in the digital age (2009), to Peter Bearman’s research on public health issues such as the rise of
“vaccine refusers” (2010). Midrange theory connects specific research projects that generate
empirical data with larger-scale theories about social structure. It aims to build knowledge
cumulatively while offering a way to make sociology more effective as a science rather than just
a way of thinking. With more sociologists appreciating such a stance, midrange theory is helping
to push the discipline forward into the sociology of the future.
Glossary
POSTMODERNISM
a paradigm that suggests that social reality is diverse, pluralistic, and constantly in flux
MODERNISM
a paradigm that places trust in the power of science and technology to create progress,
solve problems, and improve life
MIDRANGE THEORY
an approach that integrates empiricism and grand theory
Closing Comments
Many of you will have already started a sociological journey, although likely a casual or
personal one … until now. The popularity of reality TV, whether RuPaul’s Drag Race or Shark
Tank or The Real Housewives of ________ (fill in the blank), speaks to our fascination with the
everyday lives of other people. As students of sociology, we are interested in everyday life
because we are excited to understand more about how its patterns and processes create our
larger social reality. As we become better social analysts, using strategies to set aside any
blinding preconceptions or distracting conclusions, we can become better acquainted with
some of the fundamental tools that can turn our natural curiosity into scientific inquiry. A
sociological perspective allows us to grasp the connection between our individual experiences
and the forces and structures of society. As Bernard McGrane says, “Sociology is both
dangerous and liberating” (1994, p. 10), as much because of what we can learn about ourselves
as because of what we can learn about the world around us.

As a discipline, sociology possesses some of the qualities of the society it seeks to understand:
It is broad, complex, and ever changing. This can make mastering sociology a rather unwieldy
business, as much for the students and teachers who grapple with it in the classroom as for the
experts out working in the field. We want you to become familiar with the members of
sociology’s family tree from its varied historical roots to the tips of its offshoots that might one
day become important future branches. Because we have no single acknowledged universal
sociological theory that satisfactorily explains all social phenomena (despite claims otherwise
by some theorists), new theories can be developed all the time. Social theory tries to explain
what is happening in, to, and around us. For any and every possible new, different, or
important phenomenon—from the most mundane personal experience to questions of ultimate
global significance—sociologists will attempt to explain it, understand it, analyze it, and
predict its future. By looking at the development of the discipline, we are reminded that the
contemporary grows out of the classical, and that older theories inspire and provoke newer
ones. Theorists past and present remain engaged in a continual and evolving dialogue through
their ideas and their work, and until such time as society is completely explained, the branches
of sociology’s family tree will continue to grow in remarkable ways.

We know this chapter covered a lot of ground. It’s okay if it didn’t all sink in. We will revisit
many of these concepts and theories in later chapters. We hope you will treat this chapter as a
first introduction to key sociological concepts, figures, and theories and that you will return to
it for reference as you delve further into the text.
APPLYING WHAT YOU’VE LEARNED
Let’s Talk More
1. The sociological theorists in this chapter are almost all white males from Europe or the United
States, evidence of Eurocentric, racist, and sexist bias in sociology. Do your classes in other
disciplines have these same deficiencies?
2. Think about the last time you returned home from a long trip. Did ordinary, everyday things
seem strange or unfamiliar? How could culture shock help you be a better sociologist?
3. What does it mean to possess a sociological imagination? Think of your favorite food. What
historical events had to happen and what social institutions have to function in order for this
food to be available?
Let’s Explore More
1. Film Zemeckis, Robert, dir. Cast Away. 2000.
2. Article Irwin, Neil. “What If Sociologists Had as Much Influence as Economists?” The New
York Times. March 17, 2017.
3. Blog Post Sternheimer, Karen. ““Biography and History Intersecting: Thinking Critically about
Individualism” Everyday Sociology (blog). Aug. 16, 2021.
 CHAPTER 2
Studying Social Life: Sociological
Research Methods
Humorist Dave Barry, the Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist and author, has written many entertaining
articles as a reporter and social commentator. Some of his thoughts on college, however, seem
particularly appropriate for this chapter. In one of his most popular essays, Barry advises students not
to choose a major that involves “known facts” and “right answers” but rather to pick a subject in
which “nobody really understands what anybody else is talking about, and which involves virtually no
actual facts” (Barry 1987, p. 203). For example, sociology:

For sheer lack of intelligibility, sociology is far and away the number-one subject. I sat through
hundreds of hours of sociology courses, and read gobs of sociology writing, and I never once
heard or read a coherent statement. This is because sociologists want to be considered scientists,
so they spend most of their time translating simple, obvious observations into scientific-sounding
code. If you plan to major in sociology, you’ll have to learn to do the same thing. For example,
suppose you have observed that children cry when they fall down. You should write:
“Methodological observation of the sociometrical behavior tendencies of prematurated isolates
indicates that a causal relationship exists between groundward tropism and lachrimatory, or
‘crying’ behavior forms.” If you can keep this up for fifty or sixty pages, you will get a large
government grant.

Although Barry exaggerates a bit, if there weren’t some truth to what he is saying, his joke would be
meaningless. While sociologists draw much of their inspiration from the natural (or “hard”) sciences
(such as chemistry and biology) and try to study society in a scientific way, many people still think of
sociology as “unscientific” or a “soft” science. In response, some sociologists may try too hard to
sound scientific and incorporate complicated terminology in their writing.

It is possible, of course, to conduct research and write about it in a clear, straightforward, and even
elegant way, as the best sociologists have demonstrated. Contrary to Barry’s humorous claims,
sociology can be both scientific and comprehensible. So let’s turn now to a discussion of how
sociologists conduct their research, which includes the methods of gathering information and
conveying that information to others. For the record, Dave Barry went to Haverford College near
Philadelphia, where he majored in English.