The two perspective of social reseach

From "Contemporary Social Theory" by Ruth A Wallace

There are basically two perspectives that social scientists conduct the social research:Function Theory and Conflict Theory.

Functionalists, represented by Parson, look at societies and social institutions as systems in which all the parts depend on each other and work together to create equilibrium. They do not deny the existence of conflict, but they believe society develops ways to control it.

Conflict theorist's perceptions of society could hardly be more different. Where functionalists see interdependence and unity in society, conflict theorists see an arena in which groups is able, temporarily, to suppress its rivals. Functionalists see the civil law, for example, as a way of increasing social integration, whereas conflict theorists see civil law as a way of defining and upholding a particular order that benefits some groups at the expense of others.

The general conflict orientation incorporates three central and connected assumptions:

1). People have a number of basic interests, things they want and attempt to acquire that are not defined by societies but rather are common to them all.

2). Power is the core of social relationships that is scarce and unequally divided. That is often the source of conflict, but also as essentially coercive. That leads to a concern with the distribution of the resources that give people more or less power.

3). Value and ideas are seen as weapons used by different groups to advance their own ends rather than as the means of defining a whole society's identity and goals. Ideology is regarded by Conflict theorists the means to legitimate the "ruling party"s benefits.

Even within Conflict theorists, there are several distinguishably different groups:

The first group of theorists believes social scientists have a moral obligation to critique society. It refuses to separate the analysis from judgment or fact from value, they even doubt whether it ever can be. Theorists in this group also often believe that it is possible, in principle, for a society to be conflict free.

The famous figures in the first group are Karl Marx,modern Marxism, Neo-Marxism, the Frankfurt School, C Wright Mills, and Pierre Bourdieu.

The second groups, by contrast, considering conflict to be an inevitable and permanent aspect of social life, it also rejects the idea that social science's conclusions are necessarily value-laden. They are interested in establishing a social science with the same canon of objectivity as in natural science.

Max Weber, Ralf Dahredorf, Lewis Coser, and Randall Collines belong the second group.

As a social science researcher, I confess I incline to be the conflict theorists in second group, and the same time, I strive to promote the sound system and institutions which functionalists hope for. However, judging by current development, I am not a bit optimistic.

I know that many of you might not agree with me, but I have to say that there is not so much hope for human society as whole. Individuals are yet to seek for their own the eternal ending.