Critiquing and Expanding the Sociology of Inequality: Comparing Functionalist, Conflict, and Interactionist Perspectives

Many sociologists appear to assume that there are only two broad approaches to the study of inequality: functionalism and conflict theory. Textbooks on introductory sociology and social stratification frequently compare the two theoretical camps by distilling and juxtaposing their contradictory premises. In this article, I argue that a third alternative, symbolic interactionism, can make a distinctive contribution to the field of stratification and inequality. By extrapolating from and building on Blumer’s fundamental principles of interactionism, I articulate the basic features of this neglected viewpoint and compare it to the general orientations of functionalism and conflict theory. CRITIQUING AND EXPANDING THE SOCIOLOGY OF INEQUALITY: COMPARING FUNCTIONALIST, CONFLICT, AND INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVES PAGE 2 CRITIQUING AND EXPANDING THE SOCIOLOGY OF INEQUALITY: COMPARING FUNCTIONALIST, CONFLICT, AND INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVES The conventional wisdom in sociology, at least as expressed in the discipline’s textbooks, is that there are only two major approaches to the study of inequality: functionalism and conflict theory (Kerbo 1991, p. 92; Shapiro 1998, pp. 29-30). In books that provide an introduction to the field of sociology, it is not uncommon to see these two theoretical camps explicitly defined and differentiated (Anderson and Taylor 2001, p. 176; Macionis 2001, pp. 257-8; Thio 1986, p. 212; Tischler 2002, p. 207). Usually, functionalism serves as the weaker counterpart to more powerful conflict explanations of why inequality exists in society and what consequences it has. In other chapters of the same introductory texts, however, symbolic interactionism is listed as a major sociological perspective. When the topic switches to deviance, family, or the self, interactionism is much more likely to be presented as a distinct alternative to functionalism and conflict theory. But in the chapters specifically devoted to inequality, interactionism frequently disappears or is given short thrift (e.g., Macionis 2001). In this article, I take issue with the conventional sociological wisdom that there are only two broad approaches to inequality. I argue that interactionism is a distinguishable and potentially enlightening option to functionalism and conflict SCOTT R. HARRIS PAGE 3 theory. In order to clarify this option, I compare its guiding principles with those that summarize and guide functionalist and conflict research on inequality. By extrapolating from and building on Blumer’s (1969) fundamental premises of interactionism, I articulate the special contribution interactionism can make to the study of inequality. FUNCTIONALIST AND CONFLICT PERSPECTIVES ON INEQUALITY The wealth of literature that comprises the sociology of inequality is huge and complex; any synopsis and analysis would be a highly selective and interpretive feat. Nevertheless, many sociologists—myself included—often find it useful to try to distill the key points of certain segments of that literature in order to try to summarize work that has been done and to shape future research. A third reason, of course, is to attempt to explain ―the field‖ to students and other newcomers, as textbooks do. In this section of my paper I draw heavily on Anderson and Taylor’s (2001) well-crafted text on introductory sociology, as well as Davis and Moore’s (1945) influential original statement of the functionalist approach and Tumin’s (1953) famous conflict critique, in order to present pared-down versions of functionalist and conflict perspectives on inequality. I limit my portrayals of these two camps to six main points each, presented in two separate tables, in order to make my comparison with interactionism more clear and manageable. The first table summarizes the functionalist perspective. CRITIQUING AND EXPANDING THE SOCIOLOGY OF INEQUALITY: COMPARING FUNCTIONALIST, CONFLICT, AND INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVES PAGE 4 Table 1: Functionalism on Inequality (Adapted from Davis and Moore 1945; Tumin 1953) 1. Society is an organic system whose various components work together to contribute to the health of the system. Some of the positions within the system, though, are more important than others for the survival of the society. 2. For a society to remain healthy, the most functionally important positions must be filled by the most qualified people. However, the number of people with the talent and/or the training to fill these roles is limited. 3. Individuals must be induced to spend the time, effort, and financial resources that training requires. 4. Consequently, society allocates greater rewards to those positions that are more important and require scarce talents. 5. Inequality is an unconsciously established system through which societies fill the most crucial positions with the most skilled persons. 6. Some degree of inequality is inevitable because it contributes positively to the functioning of societies. Functionalism relies on the metaphor that society is a body or a living system (Rigney 2001, p. 17). Just as a human organism consists of many parts (e.g., brain, heart, stomach) working together for the survival of the person, so too does society consist of multiple cooperative components. Functional analysis proceeds not by examining the details of specific interactions but by looking at the society as a whole and determining how it maintains itself. If some institution or pattern exists, these analysts assume it probably serves some good purpose. SCOTT R. HARRIS PAGE 5 When functionalists consider the ubiquity of social deviance, for example, they note the positive role that inappropriate behavior plays in maintaining the health of societies. By prompting outrage in others, the deviant can clarify and reinforce social norms while strengthening a group’s sense of community. When functionalists Davis and Moore (1945) turn to the topic of inequality, the same sort of analysis occurs. These authors focus on occupational stratification and wonder why it is that all societies tend to give unequal rewards (e.g., income and prestige) to the different positions that comprise its social structure. In modern terms, why do doctors, judges, and computer scientists make more money and receive more respect than garbage collectors and migrant farm workers? Their answer is that some positions are more important to the survival of the society than others are. These positions require much talent and education. However, the pool of potential position holders is limited, and individuals must be encouraged to acquire the training and develop the capabilities that are needed. Higher levels of rewards are thus given to those occupations (e.g., in medicine or law) that require a large investment of time and effort. Hierarchical arrangements, then, are ―unconsciously evolved‖ systems by which a society fills its most important jobs with the most capable people (Davis and Moore 1945). In contrast to functionalism’s somewhat benign organismic viewpoint, conflict theory adopts the metaphor ―society as war.‖ From this perspective, the social realm is ―a figurative battlefield upon which contending social factions 1 Not every part of society is said to be functional, however. Sometimes functionalists explain deviance and other social problems as the result of a structural strain that results when two (or more) of society’s parts become mis-aligned (e.g., Ogburn 1957). CRITIQUING AND EXPANDING THE SOCIOLOGY OF INEQUALITY: COMPARING FUNCTIONALIST, CONFLICT, AND INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVES PAGE 6 struggle for control of scarce resources such as wealth and power‖ (Rigney 2001, p. 67). Whereas functionalists look for different functional components, conflict theorists look for competing interest groups, exploitation, and struggle. Class, race, and gender are the principal factors that shape ―who gets what,‖ not the unconscious operation of a harmonious social system. Accordingly, conflict theorists’ divergent metaphor leads them to criticize Davis and Moore’s formulation on many counts. Unequal wages, conflict theorists argue, may have more to do with elites dominating their workers than with talent, training, or functional importance. Or, a conflict theorist might highlight the fact that some people may earn more money primarily because they were born white or male or upper class. Table 2: Conflict Theory on Inequality (Adapted from Anderson and Taylor 2001, p. 176) 1. Different groups struggle over societal resources and compete for social advantages. Classes exist in conflict with each other as they vie for power and economic, social, and political resources. 2. Inequality results from a system of domination and subordination where those with the most resources exploit and control others. 3. The most powerful use their resources to reproduce their position and advantages. Elites shape societal beliefs and laws to make their unequal privilege seem legitimate and fair. 4. There is blocked mobility in the system because the working class and poor are denied the same opportunities as others. 5. The most vital jobs in society–those that sustain life and the quality of life–are often the least rewarded. SCOTT R. HARRIS PAGE 7 6. Inequality prevents the talents of those at the bottom from being discovered and used. Hence, the more stratified a society, the less likely that society will benefit from the talents of all its citizens. I think it is safe to say that for the past few decades conflict theory has been the main perspective sociologists use when researching and theorizing about social inequality. Inequalities of class, race, and gender are most often analyzed as unnecessary, unfair, and/or exploitive relations between rival groups in society. Although some might question how much positive social reform has come from all this research (Cancian 1995), few would deny that inequality has become one of the central organizing themes of the discipline and that conflict theory is sociologists’ perspective of choice (Kerbo 1991; Shapiro 1998). INTERACTIONISM AND INEQUALITY Functionalism and conflict theory appear to be diametrically opposed. One’s guiding imagery assumes cooperative interdependence among society’s parts; the other’s metaphor assumes the parts are in heated battle. The two perspectives make different fundamental assumptions and arrive at differing sets of conclusions. Despite their differences, though, some important commonalities can be found. Specifically, both functionalists and conflict theories take it for granted (1) that inequality exists as an objective entity ―out there‖ in society and (2) that it is primarily their prerogative to define, identify, and explain it. An interactionist perspective, I argue, would contradict the other camps on both of CRITIQUING AND EXPANDING THE SOCIOLOGY OF INEQUALITY: COMPARING FUNCTIONALIST, CONFLICT, AND INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVES PAGE 8 these points. Interactionism gives priority to the diverse meanings that things (such as ―inequality‖) have for everyday people and assumes that people bring those objects into existence through their interpretive practices. As a result, this perspective tends to set aside many of the issues that concern functionalists and conflict theorists. Instead, attention is focused on more basic and (arguably) prior issues, such as how ―equal‖ and ―unequal‖ states of affairs come to be defined, explained, and acted toward as consequential features of various social