Sociology of Education: Functionalism, Conflict, and Symbolic Interactionism

Introduction: Sociological Paradigms and Education

While all three of the major sociological paradigms of the 20th century have provided valuable insight into the ways that education shapes human life and society, it is ultimately the theory of symbolic interactionism that offers the most liberating and positive view of the human mind for educators today. Education may be defined as the systematic transmission by professional educators of formalized skills — but how a sociological theory defines professionalism, and what skills it deems necessary for an individual to learn, varies widely depending on the philosophical orientation of the theorist or, for that matter, the politician deciding educational policy and funding. The paradigm's view of the student and his or her mind likewise impacts the nature of how a sociological theory is put into practice by teachers. Symbolic interactionism encourages teachers to view students as active participants in the pedagogical process.

Functionalism and Standardized Education

In many quarters of educational policy, the theory of functionalism continues to dominate. Although it is one of the oldest sociological theories — dating back to Émile Durkheim's focus on the relationship of human beings to social institutions — functionalism still bears considerable influence on the way administrators and teachers view education. Functionalism's stress upon the scientific method "leads to the assertion that one can study the social world" in the same way that a scientist studies phenomena in the physical world, and thus educators can manipulate variables within the institution, such as the curriculum and the students, to achieve a desired outcome much as one would in a scientific experiment (McClellan 2000).

The functionalist paradigm is currently manifest in attempts to monitor education in a supposedly objective, positivistic, and value-free manner through the medium of standardized tests, as in the No Child Left Behind initiative. Schools are punished if students do not meet crucial benchmarks, determined by outside authorities, as a way of forcing schools to ensure that students are learning what is deemed correct and necessary to function in society. According to functionalism, social institutions — such as those that impart the building blocks of a citizen's education — are necessary to maintain the "organic unity of society," and the purpose of education is to convey what is necessary for a social system to exist, such as America's civic ideals of democracy or the scientific knowledge needed to compete internationally (McClellan 2000).

Functionalism's assumptions imply that social institutions should satisfy collective rather than individual needs. Deviations from the norm are discouraged through the use of social controls — for example, passing a standardized reading or mathematics exam is weighted with more value than a school's offering unique programs tailored to individual students' learning styles and multiple intelligences. For functionalists, society seeks to preserve itself and maintain a state of homeostasis, even though this may mean occasionally marginalizing those who deviate from accepted methods of functioning and learning in school. Deviation can also be measured by objective studies such as tests, or through comparative, statistical social research (as opposed to anecdotal, anthropological inquiry). "Functionalists have tended to be less concerned with the ways in which individuals can control their own destiny than with the ways in which the limits imposed by society make individual behavior scientifically predictable" (McClellan 2000).

Much as they did at the beginning of the 20th century, many functionalists see education in America as uniquely beneficial as an agent of social change — but only insofar as education encourages and enables people to join preexisting societal groups: "These [functionalists] all asserted a causal linkage between amounts of schooling and the economic advancement of both individuals and societies. They also implied that, with industrialization, the need for technologically educated labor progressively undermines class" and social stratification in general, and that educational credentials and technical knowledge promote social mobility and create a more equitable society by encouraging class mobility without destroying the capitalist class structure (Marshall 1998). By opening up education to new social groups — as in the case of Brown v. Board of Education — society can change by socializing individuals in a more inclusive fashion, bringing all Americans into line with conventional norms and behaviors. In functionalism, there is a perceived desire among both individuals and society to feel validated by the group. Thus, by engineering and improving social institutions in a mathematically precise way, one can change society.

Functionalism does not necessarily have to be conservative, as its influence can be seen in George Counts and Theodore Brameld's theory of reconstructionism in education, which suggested that "education must commit itself here and now to the creation of a new social order" — even while Counts and Brameld maintained that this new social order should "fulfill the basic values of our culture and at the same time harmonize with the underlying social and economic forces of the [democratic] modern world" (Kneller 1962). Yet always, in functionalism, it is the child who must be "conditioned inexorably by social and cultural forces," the teacher who "must act as advocate," and "the means and ends of education must be completely re-fashioned to meet the demands of the present cultural crisis and to accord with the findings of the behavioral sciences" (Kneller 1962).

Conflict Theory and Educational Inequality

In contrast, conflict sociologists see conflict — rather than homeostasis — as the baseline of all societal institutions, including education. "A group which was entirely centripetal and harmonious — that is, 'unification' merely — is not only impossible empirically, but it would also display no essential life-process and no stable structure," wrote Georg Simmel (1903). In contrast to the conformist potential of education espoused by functionalism, conflict theory postulates that tension between groups is inevitable and that society is dynamic by nature, rather than striving toward stasis and self-preservation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, conflict theory became most popular during the 1960s, when conflicts between students and teachers — as well as other authority figures — came to the forefront of public discourse. Students were perceived as needing their consciousness raised, and mobilized, outraged students were also viewed as essential, dynamic components of the change process, particularly for conflict theorists of a leftist orientation.

Conflict theory is not simply relevant to education in terms of conflicts between students and teachers. It also touches upon how educators, such as college professors, may offer theories that conflict with certain moral values espoused by a student's parents and home environment, as during the political correctness "cultural wars" of the 1990s; and education can provide a kind of counter-cultural influence to the conventional assumptions of modern society. Within schools, disparate groups may also have conflicting interests — such as administrators and teachers, different factions of the student body, and students of varying backgrounds. Conflict-focused Marxist sociologists in particular have been concerned about disparities in economic opportunity, as sociological studies have noted a "wide range of material, cultural, and cognitive factors likely to depress intellectual development.... Patterns of schooling reflected, rather than challenged, class stratification and racial and sexual discrimination" in many instances, and must be altered (Marshall 1998). Conflict is seen as necessary and potentially healthy for all societies existing in a state of inequality, but the educational gains of one group require other groups to sacrifice class privileges — willingly or unwillingly, as in the case of affirmative action. Social engineering for reform, rather than for social homeostasis, is the goal.

Conclusion: Why Symbolic Interactionism Empowers Educators

This is why symbolic interactionism offers the most liberating and positive view of the human mind for educators today. It views the student as an active, creative participant in the learning process — whenever learning takes place, in a positive or a negative fashion, the student has the power to reshape knowledge in a new way. The student is not a passive recipient of societal norms, as in functionalism, whose education must be standardized lest he or she be "left behind." Nor is the student a passive part of a class conflict with a consciousness that must be awakened in a particular fashion to be liberated from that conflict. The student may be located in culture, but culture — like language itself — is in a continual state of flux, not homeostasis or dialectical material struggle. Every classroom is its own culture as well. Thus, teaching with the theory of symbolic interactionism in mind fosters the view of education as a dialogue between student and teacher, not a cultural monologue.

Works Cited

Kneller, George F. Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. 1962. "Four 20th Century Theories of Education." Excerpt retrieved 2 Jan 2008.

McClellan, Kenneth. "Functionalism." Sociological Theories. 2000. Retrieved 2 Jun 2008.

Marshall, Gordon. "Sociology of education." Dictionary of Sociology. 1998. Retrieved 2 Jun 2008.

Simmel, Georg. "The Sociology of Conflict: I." American Journal of Sociology 9 (1903): 490–525. Retrieved 2 Jun 2008.

Warde, W. F. [George Novack]. "John Dewey's Theory of Education." International Socialist Review 21.1 (Winter 1960). Retrieved 2 Jun 2008.