How Sociological Theory Creates Ways to Understand the Social World - Term Paper Example

How Sociological Theory Creates Ways to Understand the Social World Name: Course Code: Lecturer: Date of presentation: How Sociological Theory Creates Ways to Understand the Social World Introduction Human beings are social animals. The astonishing is how people come to learn and adhere to expectations, engage in their roles according to the position ascribed to them in the society. Young children when they are born their memories are blank, but how they are socialised to learn certain patterns of behaviour is a question to be answered. At the centre of these, is the role of culture in defining norms, virtues, vices, expectations and roles without even a written down guidelines (Back et al., 2012, p.19). This relationship and behaviour in human beings has over the years formed a topic of interrogation for sociologists. Sociologist in their attempt to understand how people are constrained to behave in certain way as per expectation or how people learn to operate within the cultural prescriptions they subscribe to has develop various theories propositions or borrowed from other disciplines these phenomenon. The aim of this paper is to examine how sociological theory creates ways to understand the social world. To expound on this problem, the paper focus on social learning theory and conflict theory. Social Learning Theory Human beings are social creatures and just like in the animal kingdom, their survival depends on their ability to get along with others. The behaviour and conduct of human beings throughout the different stages of life is not only as a result genetics (Scheinkman, n.d, p.1). Social interactions, to a large extent, play an instrumental role in moulding an individual. Clear documentation as far as the significance of social interaction in the learning process is concerned has been done (Shank, 2004). Human beings are born with the ability to organise, categorise and inflict order on their environment which results to the development of their own individual and unique view of the world (Greene & Burleson, 2003, p.140). However, these learning are controlled by culture which is able to instil order and predictability (Jones, Bradbury & LeBoutillier, 2011, p.6). This order and predictability is understood from the framework of reward and punishment in shaping personality and social development (Grusec, 1992, p.776). Much of an individual’s life is shaped or constrained by a combination of biological, cultural in addition to life encounters that significantly affect the content of one’s view of the world and the manner in which they organize their experiences (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2011, p.316). As children come across new experiences, prevailing memory structures in their brain get reshaped and hence influencing their linguistic, cognitive, social and emotional developments in the long run (Kamii & Joseph, 2004, p.33).Social learning theory aim at explaining the human behaviour. A good entry point of analysing this theory is child development in terms of learning through reinforcement and punishment. Social theory accepts the fact that people are able to learn from the observations they make from their environment. However, the critical bit is how this learned behaviour is encourage or discouraged. This paper understands social learning theory from the perspective of structural consensus model which assumes that culture as a lot of roles in constraining individual behaviour of allowing for the same. In this perspective, culture is contextualised to imply rules that direct individual behaviour (Jones, Bradbury & LeBoutillier, 2011, p.6). Various works have been conducted on the topic of social learning theory. Rotter’s in his work analysed the relationship between learning and personality. In his work, he deduced that individuals organise their behaviour with the anticipated consequences in mind. Apart from the above, Rotter provided other assumptions so as to strengthen his argument. The other contributor was Bandura. Bandura observed that most of learning occurs in social environment. In this approach, he observed that people learn rules, skills, strategies attitudes and beliefs among others by observing others (Grusec, 1992, p.777 & 778). Social learning theory acknowledges that behavioural patterns are acquired by links or contingencies established between the behaviour and its consequences. Further, it acknowledges that, when behaviour is followed by desired results (reward), that behaviour is ‘reinforced’ (made more likely). On the other hand, when behaviour is followed by undesirable or aversive consequences the behaviour is made less likely. This is what social learning theory aims at suggesting (Borum, 2004, p.13). To understand how sociologists have used this theory to explain how social world operates, this section will examine two critical areas that this theory has been applied. The two areas are crime and deviant behaviours such as excessive aggressive which are tied to punishment/ desistance and reward. The argument presented is that social rules are important in defining the social structure (Jones, Bradbury & LeBoutillier, 2011, p.7). How people become socially deviant and engage in what is not prescribed by cultural norms as virtue is best understood from psychoanalytic model. Grusec (1992, p.777 & 778) posits that everyone posses a destructive potential. This translates to a possibility of anti-social and anti-cultural trends. These trends can be strong enough to determine a person’s behaviour in the society. The nexus between social learning theory and behaviour is contextualised through the reward and punishment framework. For instance, if an individual decides to engage in deviant behaviour like crime and goes unpunished, that individual is likely to continue with the same trend. This becomes even worse when the deviant person is rewarded for the bad action he or she does. This is where socialisation through it agents like family comes in helping one internalise certain behaviour. The same concept of social development can be analysed from Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory in terms of behaviour modelling, imitation and observational learning (Smith & Berge, 2009, p.440). Social cognitive learning theory derives its core argumentative elements from the field called social cognition. The underlying assumption is that people interact with their environment based on how they perceive and interpret it. In a precise term, people build an internal (cognitive) map of their external (social) environment, and these perceptions – rather than an objective external reality – determine their behaviour (Borum, 2004, p.13 and 14). For instance, in the socialisation process, if for example a girl child is taught that female students are only good in humanity courses, she will grow believing the same even though she has not had any empirical test of the same. The reason is that she has be socialised to believe the same and has accepted it because it is acceptable across board ion her society. Structural Conflict Theory Conflict theory presents a different paradigm from that of structural consensus theory. Instead, the theory adopts the framework of advantage and disadvantage that one faces as the impetus to act in a certain way. The belief is that those who are more advantaged have more opportunities to choose from. The theory observes that society is marred with numerous inequalities. However, the theory focus on different kind of advantages they see as unequally distributed (Jones, Bradbury & LeBoutillier, 2011, p.10). To those who ascribe to this line of thinking, the source of inequality is the un-proportional possession of rewards and advantages by various groups which in turn influences their choices and behaviour (Jones, Bradbury & LeBoutillier, 2011, p.12). The structural conflict theory clamour is not only to show the role of culture in socialisation, but to show those who own the powers utilise it (Jones, Bradbury & LeBoutillier, 2011, p.14). The case for counteracting the arguments held by structural consensus model hold water since in this world people are competing for power in terms of resources and decision making so that they can be able to have their way. The concept of subordination comes into limelight when we talk about the conflict theory. For instance, if it was to be assume that the world is at consensus the there would have been no inequality among genders (Jones, Bradbury & LeBoutillier, 2011, p.17). Take a case example of most developing economies where gender parity is an issue. Thus, it is not a matter of looking at how people are socialised, but also who own the critical resources to make behave in a certain way. Conclusion The aim of the paper was to examine how sociological theory creates ways to understand the social world by using social learning theory and conflict theory. The social learning theory was contextualised with the social consensus model that sees the role of culture in terms of norms and values as a social environment in shaping the learning process and how people behave. The emerging theme is that these two theoretical propositions are important in explaining how sociologist explain social world of human beings. In this discussion, the paper analysed two important works in the field of social learning theory. The two works are Rotter’s work which links learning & personality and Bandura’s work which links cognition and social environment. Social learning theory is important in explaining how people end up behaving in certain manner as prescribed by their environment which is culture. The next analysis used to explore how sociologists understand the social world particularly human behaviour is the conflict theory. Conflict theory was taken in the context of society being an arena of inequality and thus, the advantage or disadvantage one faces will shape his or her behaviour. References Back, L., Bennett, A., Edles, L. D., Gibson, M., Inglis, D., Jacobs, R. & Woodward, I. 2012. Cultural Sociology : An Introduction. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Borum, R. (2004). Psychology of terrorism. Tampa: University of South Florida. Greene, J.O. & Burleson, B.R. 2003. Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grusec, J. E. 1992. Social Learning Theory and Developmental Psychology: The Legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Development Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 776-786. Jones, P., Bradbury, L. & Le Boutillier, S. 2011. Introducing Social Theory, Second Edition. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kamii, C. & Joseph, L.L. 2004. Young children continue to reinvent arithmetic. 2nd grade: implications of Piagets theory. New York: Teachers College Press Plotnik, R. & Kouyoumdjian, H. 2011. Introduction to Psychology. Belmont: Cengage Learning Scheinkman, J.A. n.d. Social Interactions. Retrieved November 10, 2012 from: http://www.princeton.edu/~joses/wp/socialinteractions.pdf. Shank, P. 2004. New Social Interaction Tools for Online Instruction. Retrieved November 10, 2012 from: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper81/paper81.html. Smith, M. & Berge, Z. L. 2009. Social Learning Theory in Second Life. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 439-445. Read More