A sociological theory is an explanation of a social problem, action, or behavior.

Ecological Theorizing

In both Spencer's and Durkheim's functional and evolutionary theorizing we find another kind of biologically inspired approach: ecological theorizing that became firmly a part of sociological theory in the United States during the 1930s. Drawing from Darwin's key idea of natural selection, the basic arguments in all ecological theories are much the same: social units compete for resources within niches of resources that are necessary for their survival; and those that possess traits that enhance their capacity to secure resources and reproduce themselves will survive, while those that cannot, will die out or be forced to move to a new resource niche. Like Darwin and later Durkheim, ecological theories emphasize that as the number of units in a resource niche increases, density increases the level of competition; at some point, the niche cannot carry all of the units competing for resources. Thus whether considering the distribution of people and types of social units in urban areas (Niemela, 2011; Berry and Kasarda, 1977), where competition is institutionalized in the real-estate market, or the life and death of organizations competing for resource shares in dense niche (Hannan and Freeman, 1989), Darwinian processes are the driving force and can explain many of the dynamics of urban areas and populations of organizations. Some have even taken ecological theorizing back to the macrolevel by emphasizing that the relations among societies in their common environments can be understood in ecological terms (see, e.g., Hawley, 1986).

Sociological theory has developed in three phases: classical, postclassical, and recent. An influential postclassical synthesis effort by Talcott Parsons initially was based upon a thesis of convergence of certain classical theories, especially those framed by Durkheim and Weber. Parsons's theory then evolved into functional systems analysis. He defined sociological theory as one of the analytical theories of action, focused on the problem of social integration. Dahrendorf's conflict-theoretical alternative, featuring a revision of Marx, proposed that a Janus-faced society calls for two general theories, focused on integration and coercion, respectively. The second major effort of synthesis was initiated by George Homans, whose group process approach evolved into a program of theoretical reduction. Behavioral psychological principles, he argued, explain the causal relations that constitute Durkheimian explanation. An alternative perspective is based upon George Herbert Mead's social behaviorism and Blumer's symbolic interactionism. Here the point is that Homans's theory puts to one side just those elements stressed by Mead and Blumer, such as the social self. Recent sociological theory involves new syntheses and mutations in paradigms. Neofunctionalism, rational choice theory, and social network analysis are three examples. Efforts of theoretical integration, what Robert Merton called ‘consolidation’ in his discussion of middle-range theory, are significant for the future of sociological theory, along with the growing relevance of mathematics in the formulation of theoretical models.

Abstract

Sociological theory views modernization as a macroprocess of transition from traditional society to the society of modernity. More specifically, the main sociological theories of modernization are based on the ideas of evolutionism, functionalism, and diffusionism. Attention is also paid to the theoretical conceptualization of modernization processes in non-Western societies, which can be explained by the interaction of endogenous and exogenous factors. Within the framework of scientific discourse and the public consciousness, theory of modernization is sometimes questioned as a view of a progressive development of the world. Today, the global spread of modernization is more adequately theorized in terms of historical and sociocultural dynamic shifts from institutionalized, vertically integrated forms of social solidarity to network forms and social movements. This view of modernization as a communication phenomenon that involves the changing ways of interaction and media use highlights its self-reflexive nature, showing how modernization can only gain an access to itself by a series of partial and conflicting descriptions.

Sociological theories of conflict can be organized along two axes. One ranges from the treatment of the phenomenon as exceptional and unusual to that as endemic and constantly present. The second ranges from viewing conflict as momentous and likely to have major consequences to that seeing it as mundane and of no particular importance. Leading examples of the various possible combinations of positions on these axes are discussed. The gradual triumph in modern sociology of those perceiving conflict as both endemic and mundane led to it being regarded as normal, and to the disappearance of a distinctive conflict sociology.

3.1 Sociological Theories

Sociological theories of adolescence have often focused on relations between the generations and have tended to emphasize problems that young people sometimes have in making the transition from adolescence into adulthood, especially in industrialized society. Two themes have dominated these discussions. One theme, concerning the marginality of young people, emphasizes the difference in power that exists between the adult and the adolescent generations. Two important thinkers in this vein are Kurt Lewin (1951) and Edgar Friedenberg (1959), both of whom stressed the fact that adolescents were treated as ‘second class citizens.’ Contemporary applications of this viewpoint stress the fact that many adolescents are prohibited from occupying meaningful roles in society and therefore experience frustration, restlessness, and difficulty in making the transition into adult roles.

The other theme in sociological theories of adolescence concerns intergenerational conflict, or as it is more commonly known, ‘the generation gap.’ Theorists such as Karl Mannheim (1952) and James Coleman (1961) have focused not so much on the power differential between adults and adolescent, but the fact that adolescents and adults grow up under different social circumstances and therefore develop different sets of attitudes, values, and beliefs. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the pervasive use of age-grading—the separation of individuals on the basis of chronological age—within our social institutions, particularly schools. As a consequence of this age-segregation, there is inevitable tension between the adolescent and the adult generations. Some writers, like Coleman, have gone so far as to argue that adolescents develop a different cultural viewpoint—a ‘counterculture’—that may be hostile to the values or beliefs of adult society.

Although sociological theories of adolescence clearly place emphasis on the broader context in which adolescents come of age, rather than on the biological events that define adolescence, there is still a theme of inevitability that runs through their approach. Mannheim, for example, believed that because modern society changes so rapidly, there will always be problems between generations because each cohort comes into adulthood with different experiences and beliefs. Similarly, Lewin believed that marginality is an inherent feature of adolescence because adults always control more resources and have more power than young people.

Durkheim's Theory

Sociological theories are influenced by the theory of Durkheim (1897[1951]) based upon the evaluation of suicide statistics of Western European countries (France and Prussia) during the second half of the nineteenth century. Durkheim proposed four different types of suicide depending on the degree of successful adaptation of the individual to different types of societies. A prerequisite to adaptation of the individual to society is that individualization is neither too weak nor too strong. If the individualization is too strong, the individual will be isolated from society and the danger of an egoistic suicide increases. If the individualization is too weak, the danger of an altruistic suicide increases.

On the other hand, a prerequisite to the equilibrium between the individual and society is that social norms are neither too strong nor too unspecific. Norms that are too strong facilitate fatalistic suicide such as an expiatory death. Norms that are too unspecific favor anomic suicide. With the help of the existing suicide statistics, Durkheim tried to verify three of the four types (he did not discuss the fatalistic suicide). He tried to prove that Protestant countries have a higher suicide rate than Catholic countries, since Protestantism allows the individual a higher degree of freedom than does Catholicism: it is called egoistic suicide. He explained the increase in suicide rates during political crises (Dreyfuss affair in France) in terms of an egoistic suicide. During times of flourishing economic growth, implying a derestriction of social norms, suicide rates should lead to an anomic suicide, whereas during times of war, stronger norms lead to a stronger coherence of society, resulting in a decrease in suicide rates.

Structural Theories

Structural sociological theories of child abuse suggest that elements of structural inequality such as global inequality, poverty, unemployment, and racism influence propensities for child maltreatment. Some sociologists propose that states play a role in creating conditions that lead to abuse through supporting or ignoring substandard housing, education, and health among poor families. The stresses that accompany material deprivation lead to greater substance abuse, overcrowded conditions, and the abuse and neglect of children. Sociopolitical violence is also rooted in structural inequities within and between nations that contribute to extreme poverty within large subsets of the population of some countries. The structural perspective is supported by empirical findings that abuse and neglect are more common within poor families and among the unemployed and within neighborhoods with concentrations of poverty and high unemployment. However, this perspective fails to address the etiology of abuse within middle and upper class families.

3 Continuity and Change in Criminological Theory and Research

Much sociological theory about crime continues to be based on these theoretical traditions. A large-scale community study in Chicago, for example, found that a measure of ‘collective efficacy’ (willingness to intervene for such common goods as supervision of children and maintaining public order) had a strong effect on suppressing violent crime (Sampson et al. 1997), thus systematically documenting impressions gained from ethnographic research (Anderson 1990).

Rapid social change and new developments in research and theory continually influence sociological criminology. New and improved governmental statistical series inform criminal offending and victimization, and sophisticated self-report and observational studies provide insights into the lives of delinquents, criminals, and their victims, and the institutional and community contexts of crime. New techniques of statistical analysis yield new interpretations of empirical studies. Large-scale funding by governmental agencies and foundations permit more ambitious studies, including longitudinal data sets, experiments, and multiple methodologies and theoretical approaches. Theoretically integrative work combines insights from a variety of theoretical perspectives and levels of explanation.

Social disorganization, control, and opportunity theory continue to evolve as massive social changes alter the conditions of crime. Disciplinary boundaries become less distinct as sociologists find it necessary to take into account the impact of a rapidly changing global economy and new political alignments; developmental and learning theorists must accommodate findings made possible by technological advancements in brain and neuropsychological research and by studying life-course patterns of individuals who were studied when they were very young.

A major impediment to theoretical advance is the lack of adequate data to measure new concepts and theoretical formulations that have been stimulated by the inquiries they have made possible. Theories such as ‘control balance’ (Tittle 1995) reach beyond criminal behavior and require measurement of the amount of control exercised by an individual, the amount of control experienced by that individual, ratios between these measures, and a large number of motivational, opportunity, and situational contingencies that are hypothesized to relate to a variety of forms of deviance, including crimes. ‘Integrative shaming’ (Braithewaite 1989), extending labeling theory and insights from control theory, requires measures of social integration of communities, their ability to shame norm violators, and their willingness to reintegrate them into the community, as well as of these same motivational, opportunity, and situational contingencies. ‘Social capital’ theory requires measures of the capacity of communities and institutions to provide supportive interpersonal and institutional relationships that bridge the generations while socializing the young.

Knowledge of substantive areas such as organized and professional crime and white-collar crime continue to suffer because systematic data are unavailable or inappropriate for extant theories. Rapid social change, driven by advances in science and technology, create new opportunities for crime even as they enhance crime control efforts. The same technological advances that greatly enhance computational abilities and complex data analyses pose new challenges for institutions of social control even as they improve their reach and their efficiency. Communication and data transfer technologies, for example, have transformed criminal justice agencies and created new opportunities for criminal behavior. Other technologies, such as nuclear and biotechnologies, lend themselves to widespread victimization, blackmail, and terrorist attack. Traditional distinctions between individual and corporate behavior that is defined as crime, and the behavior of nations that, although harmful to citizens of those nations previously was considered beyond the purview of other nations, are changing rapidly. New laws and new rules continually evolve as global markets alter commercial activity.

4 Intergenerational Relations beyond the Family

In both sociological theory and popular understanding, it is assumed that people choose friends on the basis of similarity, for friends mostly have similar social status, converge in their lifestyles, and belong to the same sex and age group (Merton and Lazarsfeld 1954, Rosow 1967; for more recent literature see Filipp and Mayer 1999). Homogeneity of age, however, is viewed positively in relations between children or adolescents but negatively (as an indicator of discrimination) in relations that old people have. In reality, it is questionable whether the low number of friendships between older and younger people is evidence of discrimination. After all, friendship is usually between members of the same age group.

All in all, it is primarily through the family that the members of two, three, or even four generations maintain personal relations. Within these relations cultural traditions and family-specific experiences and narratives are passed on. At the same time, however, new forms of dealing with each other are created as well. There is no evidence to support suspicions of cultural pessimists that this balance between continuity and change is going to collapse.

Socioeconomic Theories of Poverty

Two main sociological theories offer some ideas on why an individual or a household lives in poverty. The first, often called the individual pathologies theory, blames those living in poverty for their condition. Usually based on observations of those living in poverty, this view suggests that there are individual inadequacies that predispose those living in poverty to their situation. Being lazy, addiction to the welfare system, low intelligence, or some mental and physical disability, for example, are some attributes identified in this thinking to explain why an individual cannot take opportunities that have allowed the nonpoor to thrive. In the 1990s, Hernstein and Murray’s infamous bell curve theory is a typical example of such works. This thinking has been criticized for failing to appreciate that an individual is not necessarily a free agent with all livelihood options available. Rather there are structural barriers that inhibit them from taking advantage of opportunities out of poverty. Policy responses in this frame of thinking tend to focus on correcting the individual pathologies through, for example, weaning the individual from welfare benefits (‘can work, must work’ policies) by offering targeted assistance to the individual.

An alternative to this individualization of poverty thinking is focuses on the family and the community as the cause of poverty. This is also often called the culture of poverty thinking. Its main argument is that poverty is rooted in socially generated belief systems. Through socialization (transmission of values, beliefs, and skills) poverty reproduces itself through intergenerationally reinforced behaviors. For example, a child growing up on welfare benefits is often seen as being inducted into this subculture and will likely grow up to live in poverty as an adult. While offering an alternative narrative, this way of thinking has been criticized for racial stereotyping and for failing to understand the structural factors influencing the emergence of subcultures.

Based on a critique of the individual pathologies and the culture of poverty narratives, respectively, an alternative explanation centered on the structural causes of poverty emerged. This argues that poverty is caused by structural barriers within the capitalist economy, and in some cases political systems can produce poverty.