I was having some problems to understand these 3 approaches to family/marriage in Sociology and you helped me a lot. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
Thanks for this wonderful video. I’ve learnt a lot. A few questions though. I can kind of understand that functionalism explains social changes at a macro level and symbolic interactionism focuses on a micro level, i.e., how individuals make choices given certain social norms or as they adapt to social changes. So now, my question is (1) how does symbolic interactionism conceptualize social changes? Do they occur as a number of individuals make similar choices? (E.g., upgrading social welfare system as a society gets older; or accepting more immigrations as the population shrinks) If so, how is it different from constructivism? What if, as you said, a society becomes more diverse and individuals make a whole lot of diverse choices? How does such a society change/evolve according to symbolic functionalism? (2) Are functionalism and symbolic interactionism rather complementary to each other in explaining different levels of social changes? Or are they more opposed to each other (like classicals vs Keynesians in economics)?
Hi J P, Good questions. Symbolic interactionism would argue that social change starts at the micro-level of human interaction. In order for a social movement to get started and take on significant meaning in a society, individuals need to communicate and have a shared understanding that a problem exists. Symbolic interactionism and social constructivism are very closely related. As a theory, functionalism is often critiqued for not doing a great job of explaining social change. Functionalism tends to focus more on offering explanations for how society remains stable. When social change is slow (which it often is), functionalism can more easily take those changes for granted and explain them off as being intended functions for the betterment of society as a whole. Functionalism is less equipped to explain sudden changes in societies' structures. Hope this helps, --Dr. Dan
@@sociologysavestheworldwith3001 Great explanation! Thanks Dr. Dan. I've recently started studying sociology for my project on the ancient Mediterranean (economic and social changes), and found that there isn't one theory or one school of thought that addresses the problems facing me. I'll keep digging. Thanks again!
Thank u for clear explanation
I was having some problems to understand these 3 approaches to family/marriage in Sociology and you helped me a lot. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
Thanks for this wonderful video. I’ve learnt a lot. A few questions though. I can kind of understand that functionalism explains social changes at a macro level and symbolic interactionism focuses on a micro level, i.e., how individuals make choices given certain social norms or as they adapt to social changes. So now, my question is (1) how does symbolic interactionism conceptualize social changes? Do they occur as a number of individuals make similar choices? (E.g., upgrading social welfare system as a society gets older; or accepting more immigrations as the population shrinks) If so, how is it different from constructivism? What if, as you said, a society becomes more diverse and individuals make a whole lot of diverse choices? How does such a society change/evolve according to symbolic functionalism? (2) Are functionalism and symbolic interactionism rather complementary to each other in explaining different levels of social changes? Or are they more opposed to each other (like classicals vs Keynesians in economics)?
Hi J P,
Good questions. Symbolic interactionism would argue that social change starts at the micro-level of human interaction. In order for a social movement to get started and take on significant meaning in a society, individuals need to communicate and have a shared understanding that a problem exists. Symbolic interactionism and social constructivism are very closely related.
As a theory, functionalism is often critiqued for not doing a great job of explaining social change. Functionalism tends to focus more on offering explanations for how society remains stable. When social change is slow (which it often is), functionalism can more easily take those changes for granted and explain them off as being intended functions for the betterment of society as a whole. Functionalism is less equipped to explain sudden changes in societies' structures.
Hope this helps,
--Dr. Dan
@@sociologysavestheworldwith3001 Great explanation! Thanks Dr. Dan. I've recently started studying sociology for my project on the ancient Mediterranean (economic and social changes), and found that there isn't one theory or one school of thought that addresses the problems facing me. I'll keep digging. Thanks again!
🙏
Thank you so much! helped alot
What happened at 3:54? Again, it is hard to understand what you are trying to say or explain.
At 9:42 you kind of rushed it. I would elaborate a tad more.
What happened at 2:40? It is hard to understand what you are trying to say or explain.