This paper examines the three major theoretical paradigms used in the social sciences: functionalism, interactionism, and Marxist theory. It contrasts the non-Marxist paradigms — which emphasize social stability, interconnected roles, and reconciliation of constructive and destructive social forces — with the Marxist paradigm, which identifies inherent conflict in capitalist society and calls for a radical confrontation of that conflict. Drawing on Robertson (1977) and Hagan and Greer (2002), the paper argues that rather than being mutually exclusive, Marxist and non-Marxist theories complement each other by offering multiple perspectives for understanding social life and human experience.
In the study of the social sciences, scholars and practitioners utilize various paradigms to explain particular social phenomena. There are three major paradigms, broadly categorized as the functionalist, conflict, and interactionist paradigms, although theories in the field are often divided between those belonging to Marxist and non-Marxist traditions — the latter encompassing functionalism and interactionism.
The premise of the non-Marxist paradigm is that members of society primarily interact with one another in order to create stability and order. This objective is evident in both functionalism and interactionism. Under functionalism, individuals or members of society are considered "interrelated parts," where each person has a social role that ultimately affects and influences others (Robertson, 1977:17). Similarly, interactionism recognizes the social structure that society has, though it centers more on studying the interactions of its people and their worldview about social life in general (20).
The difference between the two non-Marxist paradigms is rather minimal: while functionalism centers on social roles and interactionism centers on social action, both paradigms hold that social roles and actions are essential parts in building a socially coherent and well-structured society. Moreover, these paradigms are known for their positive outlook toward social life in general, unlike the Marxist paradigm, which posits that conflict is inherent in the lives of individuals or members of a society driven by the capitalist economy.
From these distinctions, it becomes evident that non-Marxist paradigms are reconciliatory — they attempt to create a balance between the constructive and destructive components present in society. Whether a social act or actor has a positive or negative effect on society, the non-Marxist paradigm works toward creating an explanation in which both positive and negative effects are reconciled toward a more beneficial end.
"Marxist theory, capitalism, and inevitable social conflict"
"Both paradigms together offer fuller social understanding"
You’re 51% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.