In addition, the views presented by sociologists concerning idealistic tradition is based on the significance of the concerned group that is sort to motivate, influence to belief and the subject of interest. In this regard, sociologists will not disassociate from the scientific data but will involve the subject of interest to attempt to understand the environment in its own context, showing how sociologists have subjective explanations and not objective ones (Adams et al. 267). With regard to the above, there exists queries on whether the sociological theory is a micro or a macro understood occurrence. Apart from the philosophical aspects of knowledge, the micro and macro aspects of sociological theory are highly debated in there associations. It inquires on how these sociological theories on character, reactions, and interpersonal procedures can associate with other social influences. Just like in sciences where there exists micro-macro differences which even with the advanced technology has not reconciled, sociology on the other side has attracted a lot of interests for a considerate period running for decades sprouting questions on why this is so in a field of much theory lacking influence on science. The answer to this links to the fact that these questions blend with other inquiries that relates to philosophy (Tuner 3). On this perspective, it indicates that whenever one interests to respond to this, organization and culture always comes to abstract. The response is difficult to determine and predict rendering sociological theories a bit hard to justify. In the event that response/action depends on culture and organization, it proves more predictable and responsive to relate to science.

Another concern on micro-macro is that majority of sociological theorists base their argument primarily on micro which depends on their interest to accept or deny reality of the macro realities. As this sometimes brings some difficulties, sociologists understand that the reality about social characteristics depends on micro, intermediate, as well as macro perspective where each of these characteristics has their own responses that remain unique to each, and the theory influences at whatever level acknowledges the influences on other levels. The result from this is that there exists a number of related theoretical representations and the importance of the influences at one realistic level that depends on other organizations at other reality levels (Turner 6). Therefore, this shows how sociological theory has failed to explain its micro-macro divisions despite there being much concern of this failure. In addition, there exists a misunderstanding over philosophy knowledge ascertaining the reasons of a separated sociological community. As there this disparity exists, the few efforts made to resolve the micro-macro differences have rather resulted to more divisions and not unity of the social community.

The latest understanding of social life involves everyday's life of people and all what they involve with in terms of authority, economy, and organization. In this perspective, the sociology that concerns individual's and their associations is known as micro-sociology and will be referred to even on a large consideration, like for instance, the impact of board committee sacking employees and the effect to the entire country. In this case, as small/micro decisions can have huge impacts at large scale, micro-sociologists will have an influence to majority of us even if they have that huge effect. With regard to Gorge Herbert Mead contributions to sociology, it creates the first and significant aspect of micro-sociological studies. In this perspective, human beings have moulded their identities and perception of the working of the society and what remains favorable in their considerations as they interact with each other, that is, social direction and understanding results from actual participation in a task. Secondly, micro-sociology results from phenomenology where from...

25).
On the challenges of micro-social analysis, the existing structural functionalism presents challenges to the micro-sociological analysis. On their part, micro-sociologists have emphasis that human beings play a part in creating the social structure, just as the system moulds the people, rather than what structural functionalism stresses that the systems only moulds the people. Therefore, social order results from an occurrence in which humans are involved in or from a motivated action and relations. This involves three mostly recognized elements. First, there has to be a one-to-one interactions of people as compared to how the social structure should remain an abstract player, that is interactions of real people or their factors has more effect to sociology compared to just an abstract social classes. Secondly, micro-sociologists concentrate on the explanation/meaning as compared to purposes, that is, there has to be objective explanations to the subjective influences of human activities. For instance, earlier Weber's scientific analysis interested on regular characters of the society but later this changed the perspective to interest what happens on daily basis explained by the kind of results obtained, and maintained by social interactions. Thirdly, there are emphasizes on the practically experienced characters as opposed to abstract society, that is, social associations after being influenced do challenge human beings as an outside influence of truth (Calhoun et al. 27). This indicates that in the 21st century, micro-sociologists understand that micro-sociology took quite some time to develop from oldest approaches of phenomenology to symbolic interactions. The varied approaches of micro-sociology, stretches to link with macro-sociology. For instance, from the Marx's alienation theory, social phenomenology evolved (Calhoun et al. 30).

Based on the above research, sociological theory in the 21st century orients theorists just like architects to have theories existing in minds, with symbolic correspondence and explanations of social truths based on principals of directing thinking in an organized way of the social environment. It is from the current understanding about sociological theory that theorists fail to link their observations with the daily social realities. In addition, the outline of sociological theory in the 21st century relates to the nature of understanding of the locality in consideration giving rise to a more formal approach rather that the traditional perspective (Dunaway 254). This then presents sociological with both deductive and inductive thinking, which sometimes can lead to conservative observations. Nevertheless, as the social characters change with time, theories also need to match these demands for them to be viable despite there being unresolved differences on micro-macro division. Therefore, the changing demands dictate the direction that orients 21st century sociological theorists in their thinking to present symbolic representations and explanations of reality in an organized manner.

Works cited

Adams, Bert, et al. Sociological theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. 2001. Print.

Calhoun, Craig, et al. Contemporary sociological theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.

Print.

Dunaway, Wilma. Emerging Issues in the 21st Century World-system: New theoretical directions for the 21st century world-system. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood

Publishing Group, 2003. Print.

Dunlap, Riley. Sociological theory and the environment: Classical foundations, contemporary insights. Denver, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Print.

Turner, Jonathan. Handbook of sociological theory. New York, U.S.: Springer, 2006. Print.